Full text of "Antiquities of Shropshire"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book lhal w;ls preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as pari of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one thai was never subject

to copy right or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often dillicull lo discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher lo a library and linally lo you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud lo partner with libraries lo digili/e public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order lo keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial panics, including placing Icchnical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make n on -commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request thai you use these files for
personal, non -commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort lo Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each lile is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use. remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other

countries. Whether a book is slill in copyright varies from country lo country, and we can'l offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull lexl of 1 1 us book on I lie web
al |_-.:. :.-.-:: / / books . qooqle . com/|

ESS

ANTIQUITIES

SHROPSHIRE

THE REV. R. W. EYTON,

RECTOR OF RYTON.

* - • —

Non omnia grandior etas

Qu» fugiamus habet.

VOL. II.

LONDON:
JOHN KUSSELL SMITH, 86, SOHO 8QUABE.

B. L. BEDDOW, SHIFFNAL, SALOP.
HDCCCLY.

. - •.. C t. -; •» \

• • •

TUCKER, PRINTER, FERBY*8 PLACE, OXFORD STREET.

LIST OF ENGRAVINGS

VOL. II.

1. To free page 16.

2. To face page 42.

3. — —

4. To face page 124. -

5. To face page

6. To face page

7. To face page

8. — — •

9. — —

10. — —

11. To face page

12.
13.
14.
15.

To face page

Seal of Saint James's Hospital, Bridgnorth

(Vide Vol. I, p. 849).
Seal of Philip de Burwardeeleg.
Door- way, South Side, Linley.
Font, Linley.
r S«AL of Griffin son of Gervase Goch (Tide

p. 124, note 65).
Seal of Madoc de Sutton ( Vide p. 119, note 42) .
Seal of Henry le Strange of Brockton (Vide

p. 126, note 68).
Albrighton Church.
White-Ladies,
Tong Chttboh.
South Aisle, Tang.
Corbel in South Aisle, Tong.
Monument— of Sir Richard Vernon, as sup*

posed, — Tong.
283. Tomb— of Sir Walter de Dunstaxmll (I), as

supposed — Abbey Church, Shrewsbury.
338. Shuenal Church — North side of Chancel.
Chancel, ShifthaL
Section of Chancel-Arch, ShiftnaL
FnriAii and Dbticb over the Western face

of Chancel- Arch, Shiffhal

162.
190.
252.

A. M. Maw, del.
I. H. Haw, del.

Rev. J. Brooke, del.
Ber. J. L. Petit, del.
Rev. J. L. Petit, del.
Rer. J. L. Petit, del.
E. Petit, del.

Rev. J. Brooke, dek

Rev. J. Brooke, del.
Rer. J. Brooke, del.
Rer. J. Brooke, del.

Rer. J. Brooke, del.

glmfflestmi f&un&refc*

We have now concluded our survey of all that territory which,
having been in the Domesday Hundred of Alnodestreu, passed, or
may be presumed to have passed, in time of Henry I, to the then
created Hundred of Stottesden or to the extra-hundredal Liberty
of Bridgnorth.

We now proceed with those Manors which, on the said dismem-
berment of Alnodestreu Hundred, went to constitute the newer
Hundreds of Munslow and Brimstree. The Manors allotted to
Munslow Hundred were but two, Broseley and Willey. 1 Each of
these, like Deuxhill already noticed, was, in the third place and in
time of Richard I, transferred to the Liberty of Wenlock, then
first created. In that Franchise they have ever since remained.
And first of —

BtttgtUp*

In determining the etymology of this name it is probable that
neither the Domesday word (Bosle), nor the one now in use
(Broseley) will afford so safe a guide as that current in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, viz. Burwardsley. This I take to be
nearly the Saxon name, unmutilated by Norman scribes, and
unabbreviated by that Anglo-Saxon genius of language which came
to eschew a multiplicity of letters as much as a redundancy of
words.

The name Burhredsley (Sax. Buphpebj-lea}) would be perfectly
intelligible as the lea}, or district, possessed by some Saxon Burhred,

1 I do not place Linley or Canghley in thia category, because they were not
Domesday Manor*.

ii. i

2 BROSELEY.

and with this attempt at an etymology, I leave the question.
Domesday notices the place briefly and as follows : —

" The same Helgot holds Bosle. Gethne held it (in time of King
Edward) and was a free man. Here is i hide geldable. There is
arable land (sufficient) for n ox- teams. In demesne is one (such
team), and (there are) mi serfs, and nn boors and i radman
with i team. In time of King Edward, the value (of the Manor)
was 16*. Id., now it is 12*. He (Helgot) found it waste." l

I cannot confirm my identification of Bosle with Broseley, by
showing any interest as possessed in the latter by Helgot's suc-
cessors. I find no evidence of this kind; but the question of
identity is not thus to be determined, for Broseley was not the
only Domesday manor of Helgot which passed out of his ordinary
succession : moreover it became absorbed in the Liberty of Wen-
lock, a circumstance which is known to have effaced all, or nearly
all, posterior hints of the original tenure of other Manors. I shall
presently show that Broseley was long afterwards rated as a Manor
of i hide (the Domesday measurement). 3

I can say nothing of the place during the half century following
Domesday, but some circumstances, to which I shall allude more
particularly in the sequel, have induced me to think that the Lords
of Burwardsley in the next succeeding period, were descended from
that Warin de Metz who appears to have acquired a considerable
influence in Shropshire during the reign of Henry I.

It is well known that whatever in the way of lands and honours
that monarch had to bestow was usually given to men of little
previous notoriety, and probably with less regard to any claims
of descent than with a view to strengthen the influence of the
crown. Henry's favourites were however persons of ability and
conduct, and the allegiance which the King won by a free gene-
rosity in giving to new men, seems to have been of a truer stamp
than that which resulted from his general character for impartiality
and wisdom.

Of the number thus advanced I take Warin de Metz of Lorrain
to have been one. The mere error by which this Warin de Metz
has been identified with Warin the Bald, the first Norman Sheriff

1 Domesday, fo. 258, b. 1.

* An attorney of Petronilla, wife of
Warner de WiUiley, in 1204, is written as
"Bernard deBosleie." (Plaoita de Banco

tempore Begis Jbhannis, No. 75, m. 12
recto.) This is nearly the Domesday or-
thography of Broseley, and serves to settle
the question of identity.

BROSELBT. 3

of Shropshire, has long ago been pointed out, and needs no refu-
tation here. 8

Most of what we know, or rather read, about Warin de Metz,
originates with those curious Chronicles which compiled from the
songs of TYouvbres, profess to give account of him and his suc-
cessors, the Fitz Warins of Whittington and Alberbury.

These Chronicles, besides that portion of them which common
sense rejects at once as fabulous, are replete with anachronisms,
contradictions, and improbabilities. Nevertheless, like all other
legends, they have their value, and it is our business to extract
whatever element of truth they may contain. We must accept all
that is reasonable in itself and which we cannot disprove by better
evidence. We must not only accept but greatly prize whatever is
confirmed by independent testimony.

Now the facts, which may be selected from these Fitz-Warin
Chronicles for our present purpose are these, — that Warin de
Metz lived in the time of Henry I, 4 — that his marriage allied him
with the family of Peverel, then very powerful in Shropshire and
in the Marches, — that he was related to the Dukes (or Earls) of
Little Brittany, consequently to the family of Le Strange, whose
progenitor Guy is represented indeed as coming to, and ultimately
settling in, England by suggestion of Warin.

Accepting thus much as fact, I now hazard a conjecture, bolder
than any which I have yet ventured upon in these pages and in
justification of which I can refer to no previous Writer. My
supposition, which must be tested by the sequel, is, that either
Warin de Metz himself, or William his younger son, acquired this
Lordship of Broseley in time of Henry I, — perhaps by exchange,

* Dugdale himself is responsible for
this error, which, in a general inquiry like
his, was a most likely one to arise. (Vide
Baronage^ vol. i, p. 443.) Finding, from
the Salop Chartnlary, that Warin and
Fulcoius were early Sheriffs of the County,
and finding, from the Fitz-Warin Chro-
nicles, that Warin de Metz and Fulk his
son, were men of great trust and repute,
in an era nearly as early, Dugdale na-
turally identified one pair with the other.
This identity is uniformly ignored by Mr.
Blakeway, when noticing any of the indi-
vidual* concerned, and in one instance

ously the one alluded to. Mr. Wright, in
his History of Ludlow (p. 83), has speci-
fied another of Dugdale's omissions, in
his account of the Fitz- Warins ; but the
whole question of their descent requires
that re-examination which I hope to offer
on the earliest occasion.

4 The Chronicle says that he came into
notice before the death of William the
Conqueror, and implies that he survived
the accession of Stephen. These two
data of course involve the third fact, of
his living in the time of Henry I ; but I
by no means advance them both as fully

(Sheriffs, p. 31) Dugdale's error is obvi- | correct in themselves.

4 BKOSELEY.

perhaps under a partial forfeiture of the previous Lord, perhaps by
feoffment of the then Baron of Holgate, though the seigneural
interest of the latter can be traced no further.

The Archidiaconal Chapter which, about a.d. 1115, sat at Castle
Holgate under presidency of Richard Bishop of London, has been
already alluded to. 5 Among the fourteen lay witnesses who
attended, were two whom it is to our purpose to mention here,
viz. Hamo Peverel and Warinus. The subject which engaged the
Chapter's attention should also be remembered. —

It was the Parochial jurisdiction of Wenlock Priory, and the
frequent attestations of subsequent Lords of Burwardsley, which
appear in deeds concerning that House, will render it possible
that the Warin, who attested about a.d. 1115, so attested with
reference to some similar connection. At the same time we must
mark the concurrent appearance of this Warin with Hamo Peverel
and with the Viceroy of Henry I.

For the sake of showing my hypothesis to be free from chrono-
logical objections I must now notice the first occurrence of the
sons of Warin de Metz. 6

Of these, Roger appears to have been the eldest, Fulk the
second, and eventually chief of the family ; and William, if rightly
assumed to have been son of Warin, will have been younger than
either.

The documents which suggest this view are as follows — A
charter whereby Walcheline Maminoht (one of Hamo PeverePs
coheirs) between the years 1136 and 1141 exchanged lands with
the Abbot of Shrewsbury is attested by Roger Fitz Warin. 7 —

A charter by which the same Walcheline, about the year 1145
granted Bradford Mill to Haughmond Abbey is attested by Roger
Fitz Warin and Fulk his Brother. 8

Of the presumed third Brother, William, we do not hear so
early, but when he at length occurs it is chiefly in connection
with the coheirs of the Peverels. —

An act of restitution to Salop Abbey by Hugh de Dover and

* Vol. I, pp. 217, 223.

* With the same riew of preserving a
clear chronology, I should also notice two
mis-statements of the Fitz- Warin Chro-
nicles. The first is, that Warin de Metz
married as late as the accession of Owen
Ghryned to the sceptre of North Wales,
i. e. after 1137 : the second is, that it was

his son, Fulk Fitz-Warin I, who mar-
ried Hawise de Dynan. It was Warin's
grandson (Fulk II) who espoused that
coheiress.

7 Salop Chartulary, No. 28.

8 Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 89 ; and
Harl. MSS., 2188, fo. 123.

BROSELEY. 5

Matilda his wife (one of the said coheirs), and which passed between
the years 1161 and 1172, is attested by William Fitz Warin of
Bnrewasley. 9

A similar and probably contemporaneous act by Ascelina de
Walterville, another of the said coheirs, is also attested by William
Fitz Warin of Bnrewardesley. 10

It was doubtless the individual under notice, in whose favour
the following precept of Henry II issued early in that King's
reign: —

" Henry King of England and Duke of Normandy to the Sheriff
and his Ministers of Salopesire. I concede that William Fitz
Warin may hold and have his assarts in Salopesire and may turn
them to his profit at his own pleasure. Witness — The Chancellor
at Faleise." u

It was about this time (but specifically in 1170 or 1171) that
Fulk Fitz* Warin I, the presumed elder brother of William, died.
We are also fortunate in having proof that William was ere long
succeeded at Broseley by another Warin. We thus complete a
parallel between the two presumed brothers.

This Warin, the successor and almost surely the son of William,
was a person of note in his day. The earliest mention I find of
him is in a deed which passed while Peter was Prior of Wenlock,
i.e\ between the years 1169 and 1176. This deed is attested by
Warin de BurwardesT and Philip his brother. 12

About September 1176, the three Justices appointed to that
circuit under the Statutes of Northampton, visited Shropshire.
Amongst others they inflicted a fine of two merks on " Warin de
Burwarley, because he was present when excuse was made about
the death of John." ls A murder, I suppose, had been hushed up
by the laxity of some manorial or provincial court or jury which
should have investigated the case more fully, and of which Warin
was a member.

At Michaelmas 1177, Warin de Burewardesley appears as one
of those who had been amerced by the King him« ftlf for trespass
on the Royal Forests. His fine of ten merks, when compared
with his position and that of others more heavily punished, indi-

9 Salop Chartulary, No. 30.

10 Ibidem, No. SI.

11 Dugdale's MSS. in BibL AahmoL,
toL xrii, fo. 54, quoting evidences of Sir
0. Smyth, Knt. The averting Chancellor

is doubtless Thomas a Becket, and bo the
date of the preoept probably May 1162.

13 Wenlock Register at Willey, fo. 7.

u Sot. Pip. 23 Hen. II, Salop.

BROSELEY.

cates no very aggravated offence. He discharged half the debt in
the current year and half in the year following. 14

I now come to a most important entry relating to this Manor,
the appearance of which on the Staffordshire and not the Shrop-
shire Pipe-Roll is remarkable ; but such transfers are by no means
unprecedented.

During a recent visit of the King's Justices a fine had been
negotiated by Fulko son of Fulko Pitz Warin, which he had paid
before Michaelmas 1183. He had proffered "one merk that he
might prosecute in the King's Court (instead of before the Justices)
the suit which he had concerning one hide of land in Burewardes-
ley." 16

We have here not only a satisfactory correspondence between
the Domesday measurement of Bosle and the subsequent contents
of Burwardsley ; but, according to my view, hitherto presumptive,
we have the son and heir of the elder brother suing his first cousin,
the son and heir of the younger brother, for his inheritance. We
shall see presently that the probable ground of this suit was
heirship, i. e. that the parties derived their claims from a common
ancestor.

I have no evidence of the result of this suit, but what may be
gathered from subsequent events.

About this time Warin de Burward* attests a charter which has
been already cited as relating to Corve (near Monk Hopton). 16
As Warin de Burwardesley or Burwatdele he stands last witness of
two charters which passed somewhat later in the century, and by
which Isabel de Say, Lady of Clun, and her third husband William
Botterell'ensured her extensive grants to Wenlock Priory. 17

At, Michaelmas 1188, Warin de Burewardesley had been fined
a merk by Justices of the forest, "for building a mill without
regard," i. e. without view and license of the proper authorities. 18

14 Rot. Pip. 23 and 24 Hen. II, Salop.

14 Mot. Pip. 29 Hen. II, Staff. Nova
Flacita et Nov© Conventions per Tho-
mam filium Bernardi et Alanum de Fur-
nellis et Kobertum de Witefeld. Fulko
filius Fulkonifi filii Warini reddit compo-
tum de 1 marca pro habenda loquela sua
in Curia Regis de 1 hidA terra in Bure-
wardeslega. In Thesauro liberavit. Et
quietus est.

w Supra, Vol. I, p. 140.

17 Monastivon, vol. v, 76 ; Nos. iv & v.

18 Mot. Pip. 34 Hen. II, Salop. This
probably arose from the contiguity of
Broseley to Shirlot Forest. The rights and
jurisdictions appurtenant to a Royal Fo-
rest were by no means confined to the
actual limits of the haye or chace. All
sorts of imposts were assessable on neigh-
bouring and often on distant Manors, and
every Manor thus liable was said to be
"within regard" of such and such a
Forest.

BROSELEY. 7

During the captivity of King Richard, Warin de Burwardsley
was one of those who aided in the treasonable designs of John Earl
of Moreton, nay, he was actually in the employment of that Prince
at Nottingham.

On the surrender of that Castle in March 1194, he would appear
to have been of the garrison, and his manors and effects were
seized into the King's hands in consequence. But the records
(admirably consistent with and illustrative of the history of this
eventful period) shall tell their own story. —

At Michaelmas 1194, the Custos of the King's Escheats, under
the head of "Salopescire" renders account of the following re-
ceipts, viz — of £3. 8s. 6d., of the ferm of Warm's Burwardeley,
for half a year ; — of £10. for the corn of the same vill which had
been sold; — of 17*. of the ferm of the same Warm's Bradelea
(Bradley near Broseley); — and of 6s. 8d. for hay of thesame vill
which had been sold. 19

At the same period (Michaelmas 1194) "Adam de Beissin
accounted five merks for pardon, whereas he had married Mabel
le Strange of Burwardesley without the King's license and for
having his lands in Shropshire in peace." He had paid the whole
fine. 20

This requires some explanation. Adam de Beysin of Billingsley,
Wrickton, Walkerslow, and Ashfield, the last three of which he
held in capite of the Crown, had married Mabel eldest daughter and
eventually coheir of Warin de Burwardsley. This being without
license he was liable to fine and forfeiture, not because he had
married an heiress or ward of the Crown, which was not yet
MabePs condition, but because he himself was a tenant in capite.
But a still more important hint is contained in this Exchequer
entry, — Mabel daughter of Warin de Burwardsley is called " Mabel
le Strange."

This, in conjunction with our previous assumptions, reminds us
of the inferences drawn from the Pitz Warin Chronicle, viz. that
Warin de Metz was not only akin to the family of Le Strange,
but might himself be well described by a name, which, if I mistake
not, was originally borne by or applied to more than one family.

Very shortly after Michaelmas 1194, Warin de Burwardsley
redeemed his forfeited lands, for the Escheator who accounted at

» "Escheat-Boll of Divers Counties," I » Rot. Pip. 6 Eic. I, Salop.
inserted in Rot. Pip. 6 Ric. I. I

1 €t

I
l

8 BR08ELBY.

Michaelmas 1195, had received nothing therefrom during the past
year. Moreover among the fines which had been offered and
accepted by the King since " his return from Almagne " was one to
the following effect — " Warin de Burwordesle renders account of
20 merks for haying the King's goodwill and his land, who was
with Earl John in Nottingham Castle. He has paid it and is quit."

At the same period (Michaelmas 1195), Warin de Burewordesle
is entered as owing 2J merks, a further fine which he had proffered
" for having trial about half a knight's fee in Rowlton and Ellar-
dine, against Griffin, son of Hereverth (so written for Gervase).
Warin's pledge was John le Strange. 21 The whole of this fine was
not discharged till Michaelmas, 1201.

Here again we are reminded of the connection between Warin
and the family of Le Strange ; and once more, when, some years
later, John le Strange made a grant, in Cheswardine, to Haugh-
mond Abbey, Warin de Burward* was a witness. 2 *

This is not the place to hazard any surmise about the grounds of
Warin de Burwardsley's claim on Rowton and Ellardine. Suffice
it to say, that those two Manors, together with Sutton and Brock-
ton, constituted the Serjeantry of Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, who
had in the previous year (1194) succeeded to his estates. Griffin's
title was questioned in another instance than this, and in that other
instance he is known to have compounded the adverse claim of
Ralph de Sanford by a grant of land in Brockton. Something of
the same kind probably resulted in the case of Warin de Burwards-
ley; for an Inquisition taken about a. n. 1251 records that " Griffin
de Sutton formerly alienated 2 virgates of his serjeantry at Sutton
to Warin de Burwardeg." 28

At the County Assizes (October 1203), Warin de Burwardsley
sat as a juror in causes which were tried by the King's grand
Assize."**

I must not omit to mention that besides his estates at Broseley,
Bradley, and Sutton, Warin de Burwardsley was also a tenant
in capite of the Crown. A Roll of Crown Tenures in the County
of Stafford, which appears to have been taken in 1211, records that

Warin de Burewardesley holds the Manor of Esseleg by service
of the fifth part of a knight's fee, for which he is liable to do ward

! » Rot. Pip. 1 Rio. I, Salop.

n Haughmond Ohartulary, fo. 43.
a Testa de NetnU> fo. 274.

94 Salop Astizes^ John i memb.4recto,
These jurors were usually Knights, or men
of knightly degree.

BROSELEY. 9

at Srawrthin." 26 The Manor which he thus held was Ashley-upon-
Tern, in P^rehill Hundred, Staffordshire. It had been Earl
Roger's at Domesday. The Castle, to which the service specified
was due, was that of Shrawardine, and at the period in question it
was a Royal Castle.

Within the three years ending Michaelmas 1212, Warin de
Burewardealeg had fined with the King in a sum of 20 merks, but
for what purpose we cannot say. — The fine had been paid. Within
the same period, and probably towards its close, he had been
amerced in a similar sum of 20 merks, for a breach of the forest
laws. Of this heavy penalty he had paid three parts, and the
King (John) had excused the rest. 86

I can say little more of Warin de Burwardsley, except that about
1196 he attested a composition about Priors Ditton Church already
noticed; about 1200, a grant by William Mauveysin of Kidware
(Staffordshire) ; about 1201, a grant by William Fitz Alan (ii) to
Richard de Leighton ; and between 1205 and 1211, a grant by Ralph
de Sanford which concerned land at Brockton, near Sutton. 37

A very usual witness with Warin de Burwardsley was his
neighbour Warner de Wililey, and the appearances of both indicate
a high position in the County Court, if not some more specific and
official connexion.

I find no later notice of Warin de Burwardsley than that above
mentioned, in the year 1212. He had then been in possession of
his estates nearly forty years, and he certainly did not survive many
more. At his death (between 1212 and 1220), he left two sons,
Philip and Roger, and three daughters, Mabel, Alice and Margery.

Philip de Burwardsley, the heir of Warin, occurs first as having
fined with King Henry III for a weekly Market at "Eisi" (Ashley) .
The Record of the Fine does not seem to be preserved, but on
May 20, 1220 (the King being at Shrewsbury), Philip paid by
hand of Walter de Saint Owen, a palfrey for this privilege.
Accordingly a writ close dated 2d Oct. 1220, orders the Barons of
the Exchequer to discharge the debt from their accounts. 88

At the County Assizes, Nov. 1221, William Fitz Richard and

» Testa de Nevill, fo. 249.

M Rot. Pip. 14 John, Salop, which
combines (without distinguishing) the
Sheriff's accounts for three yean. The
Ihte Soil* for the whole period are lost ;
so is the Forest Roll, which should

11.

contain the entry we are in need of.

* Supra, toI. i, p. 822. Shaw's Staf-
fordshire, vol. i, p. 170 ; and Charters at
Leighton and Haughton.

» Rot Claus. vol. i, p. 481.

BR08ELEY.

Emma his wife, who had arraigned an assize of novel disseizin
against Philip de Burwardesley and William le Breton concerning
a tenement in Wenlock and warranty of a Charter, withdrew their
suit, receiving 20*. from the latter. 89

In 1230, Philip de Bnrwardsiey appears in the Courts at West-
minster as being sued by Fulk Fitz Warin (the third of that name,
as I discover) for his inheritance, or so much thereof as had not
been involved in the litigation of their respective Fathers nearly
fifty years before. The steps which were taken in this new suit
should be given as they occur on the Bolls. On the Quinzaine of
St. Hilary (Feb. 17) 1280, Fulco Fits Warin names Henry de
Waneting as his Attorney against Philip de Burwardel. 30

On June 23, 1230, the cause came on. — " Fulco Fitz Warin, by
his Attorney sues Philip de Burwardel for 2 carrucates of land in
Edulvescote (Arlscot), and 2 carrucates in Bradelegh (Bradley),
both in Shropshire ; also for 2 carrucates in Offelegh (so written
for Ashley), Staffordshire. — Philip asks view of the whole. The
cause is adjourned to the Octaves of St. Martin/' (Nov. 18, 1230) . 81

I can trace nothing of this suit for many succeeding Terms, but
on July 8, 1233, 1 find that the cause was still standing for trial
by Grand Assize, and that Philip's Attorney, Warner de Bradele,
essoigned himself by Roger Brun. An adjournment to Nov. 12
was the result. That day was given to such Recognizors as were in
attendance, viz. to Robert de Essington, Robert de Halgeton,
Adam de Brimton, John de Acton and William de Wilbricton of
Staffordshire, and to Nicholas de Wylilegh and Robert de Sta-
pelton of Shropshire : and the Sheriff was to produce the others
(non-attendants) bodily in Court. 39

On the day named (Nov. 12,1238), the " Great Assize between
Fulco Fitz Warin, Plaintiff, and Philip de Burwardesleg concerning
land in Asselegh, was respited to one month of Easter (i.e. to May
21, 1234) by reason of the default (non-attendance) of the Re-
cognizors." M

On that day Warner de Bradele, Philip's Attorney, had essoign

a* Salop Jstize*, 6 Hen. Ill, memb.
3 doreo. Philip de Burwardaley served
at these Awriiy*, as a Juror, in several
important trials, and was apparently a
Knight.

" PlacUa apud Wertm. Hilary Term
14 Hen. Ill, memb. 12 recto.

n Ibidem, Trinity Term 14 Hen. HI,
memb. 11 dono.

* Ibidem, Trinity Term 17 Hen. III.

» Ibidem, Mich. Term 17 & 18 H. Ill,
memb. 26 recto.

BROSELEY. 11

through Richard de Beysin till Oct. 27 ; which day was also given
to Adam de Arundell, Robert de Clifton, and Nicholas de Wylilegh,
Recognizor who were in attendance; and the Sheriff had the
usual order to produce the Defaulters. 84

The Rolls of Michaelmas Term 1234 are lost, and of every Term
till that of <Easter 1236, when nothing further of this suit appears.
We are however most fortunate in having a hint as to its probable
termination. In the year 1259, the then Fulk Fitz Warin of
Whittington was in receipt of an annual quit-rent of 7s. chargeable
on one third of the Manor of Ashley. 35 He probably had a similar
Hen on the other shares of the Manor, and indeed evidence of that
fact occurs. 86

This brings round the more general and interesting question of
descent with which we are concerned. —

It matters not whether the Fulk Fitz Warin of 1259 held this
rent-charge as an inheritance derived from a succession of an-
cestors, or whether after long disuse the hereditary due had been
re-established by law. —

It was clearly a seigneural right, and represented a bond fide
claim. As such its existence is in perfect conformity with, nay a
circumstantial proof of, the theory which has now, I think, been
established, viz. that the family of De Burwardsley were Fitz
Warms, they and the Fitz Warins of Whittington descended
respectively from a younger and elder Son of Warin de Metz.
That certain Armorial Bearings were at an early period common
to both houses may perhaps be taken as a final and conclusive
evidence on the question. 87

"Bs*m. apndWewtm, Easter Term 18
Hen. HI, memb. 27 recto.

* Escheats, 48 Hen. Ill, No. 12, b.

M John de Eyton, who died in 1800,
end represented another of these shares, is
e xp r ess ly said to hare been chargeable
with a chief-rent of half a merk, doe on a
third of Ashley, to the Fulk Fiti Warin
of that period. (Inquisition, 28 Edw. I,
No. 38).

* It is not meant by this that these or
any Arms were derived from their oommon
Ancestor, Warin de Metz, whose era was
fiu* too early to warrant each an assump-
tion. The probability is, that when the
elder house assumed a certain coat, the

younger house assumed the same (with
some difference, or mark of cadency), and
thereby acknowledged or asserted its claim
of relationship. The arms borne by Fits
Warin of Whittington were—

" Quarterly, per fosse indented, argent
and gules.*'

The same Partition-Lines appear on the
shield of Philip de Burwardsley. The
colours of the latter cannot be positively
determined, but there is every presump-
tion that they were Gules and Or. The
substitution of colour for metal in the first
or principal quarter of the shield, would
be, I imagine, a mark of cadency quite in
keeping with early heraldic usage.

p
I

O
H

• ■

3 rH

-si

pp g
•3'*

— a b»«»

•S

o
•-a

5 .a »0

Ill

Ih—

-J |

3«

5j • .

T3 OS CO

OpqSo
It

jF*£ *4

eo
P £»-■

73 6*8:1

•3

-a

^^Si. At G^v

s E " *

-Ml

"§. =5

a f

is .is

3 S"? S 2 ■

tp © 04 'd © o*

rH'O iH 04 T3 fH

8S «04
O r V-^ 04

— SS

»o o

d
o

bcS • 00 04

Wff i-t rH

H
Ih

a**

•ga

-** v.

■8 .

•8

nsJSs

•S!

•3

■-S'Sis*

4wSa

.if

p •

-Jl

lei

\\-

•8.S

-sals

<■

-SSI*

•lis

II-

c
S

-Sob* CJ

-lei

-a o o

HfpO

8'°
•5 «

-a S

f-s,

lh-

©HO

»3 «j *-•

3 si

III

8
5

•g

Thomas de
Bom 1288.
Obiit 1319.

G *^3
■gOQ

S-s

©<a

'O'g

Is"

bD*a .

kO p

■SSS

-JeL

WWW

BROSKLET.

To return to Philip de Burwardsley. —

At Michaelmas 1231, he appears as having been amerced five
merks by the Justices of the Forest " because his dogs coursed
without license." He had paid two merks already, and the balance
was discharged in the following year. 88

An Inquisition of Staffordshire Tenures which seems to be of
date about a.d. 1232, reports him as holding Esseleg (Ashley) by
seijeantry of finding, at his proper cost, one serving horseman at
the Castle of Srawrthin for fifteen days. 89

Again in 1285-6, when the aid for marrying the King's Sister
Isabella to the Emperor Frederick was levied in Staffordshire,
Philip de Burewardesley paid one merk thereto, the assessment pro-
portionate to half a Knight's fee held in capite, in Asseleg. 40

Besides his estates already mentioned he seems to have held
half a hide in Stoneacton, probably under the same Madoc de

Sutton of whom he held land at Brockton. This half-hide Philip

appears to have granted to the Knights Templars of Lidley before

the year 1240.* 1

About this time he seems to have died, leaving no issue. His
Brother Roger was his heir. His wife Emma also survived him.
The period of his tenure of Broseley and Ashley is well illustrated
by a series of deeds, which must be briefly recited. —

Philip de Burwardsley grants to the Abbot and Convent of
Buildwas a right of quarry throughout his wood of Burwardsley
towards the construction of their buildings. They may make a
road from their quarries to the Severn and cut down trees for that
purpose, but must leave the timber on the ground. — Witnesses :
Fulco de Alberburi, William de Warren and Ranulf his Brother,
Gerald Fitz Toret, Roger de Restune, Memun de Swiney, William
de Aseley. 48

Besides his attestation of two Brockton Deeds, the earliest of
which passed between the years 1216 and 1224, Philip de Bur-
wardesley deals with part of his tenure in that manor as follows. —
He grants to " Ralph de Sonforde and his heirs a virgate in the

" Rot Pip. 16 & 16 Hen. in, Salop.

» Testa de Nevilljo. 240.

« Ibidem, folic* 237, 244.

<* Rot. Sund. ii, 72.

« Bldkeway MSS. in BibL Bodl. I
give the witnesses' names as I am able to
read them. The first is undoubtedly Fulk
Fit* Warm (III) j the last connected with

Ashley (Staffordshire). The deed may be
dated as having passed about 1220. If
so, it informs us of the date of some parts
of Buildwas Abbey. The Seal is charged
with the coat of arms described abore,
but is in the shape of a heart, and different
from other, and presumptively later, seals
of the same Grantor.

BROSELEY.

viU of Brocton, viz. that which Thomas held. Fifteen merks is paid
for ingress, and Philip reserves to himself and heirs an annual rent
of 12d. payable at Michaelmas" in the vill of Burewardesley.
Philip farther covenants to discharge an annual rent of 6d. due on
the said virgate to the Lord of the Fee. — Witnesses : Walter de
Hugeforde, Hugh de Bechebf, Richard de Ruton, William de
Bagesouer, Henry le Strange, William Ruscel, Adam de la Haya. 43

As regards his Manor of Ashley, Philip de Burwardeleg grants
to Richard le Rekene of Podemor half a virgate in the vill of
Esseleg, with such common rights as were enjoyed by his other
men of Esseleg. — Richard to pay reasonable pannage if he should
have any swine in the Lord's wood. — Witnesses : Sir Benedict de
Bromleg, Geoffrey his son, William, Clerk of Chatculne, Gervase
de Standon, Richard de Podemor, Nicholas de Derinton, John and
William sons of Robert Provost of Esseleg, and others. 44

By another deed " Philip, Lord of Burwardsley grants to William,
son of Hen?$ius of Tonge and his heirs, half a virgate in Edulves-
oote (Arlscott), which John, Brother of Dame Petronilla, held. —
Witnesses : Richard de Middelhope, Richard de Leiton, Reginald
de Leigh, Nicholas de Wilileye, Wido de Ferlauwe, William le
Forcer, Richard de Kayleg, John Tece, Stephen de Swiney, Roger
de Presthope, William de Burwardsley, 46 Walter Bon Valet,
William de Benethale, Adam de Hesleia (Ashley). 46

A further series of three deeds which seem to have passed suc-
cessively between the years 1226 and 1244), contain many points of
local and some of more general interest. —

4 Charter in possession of the Rev.
John Brooke. The Seal, of white wax, is
nearly destroyed, but enough remains to
show a shield of arms divided " Quarterly,
per fease indented." The probable date is
from 1280 to 1280.

44 Charter at Willey. I quote this deed
as affording disproof of Erdeswiclc's state-
ment (Edition 1844, p. 116) as to the de-
scent of the Bromleys, of whom I have
move to say presently • Podmore, Chatkill,
Bromley (now Gerrards Bromley), Stan-
don, and Dorrington, are all viU* or ham-
lets near to Ashley; Dorrington is in
Shropshire.

* There was a William de Burwardel,
son of Baldwin, who being with King
John at Dublin, in 1210, had on August

21, an advance of two merks out of the
King's coffers. (Praxtita, p. 218). This
debt, together with another prasHtum of
20*., was repaid through the Sheriff of
Shropshire, in the year ending Michaelmas
1281 (Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. Ill), and by
William de Borewardel himself who may
therefore be the witness of the above.
, ** Coyney Charters, copied by Dugdale
(vol. xxxix, p. 34, in BibL AshmoL Oxon.)
The year 1230 must be the proximate date
of this deed. It had a Seal of Arms —
"Quarterly, per fesse indented." Mr.
Blakeway's supposition that Dame
Petronilla, mentioned in this deed, was
the wife of Warner de Wililey, is not,
I think, well grounded.

BROSELEY

By the first, Philip Lord of Burwardesleg with consent of his
wife and heirs, grants to Geoffrey son of Nicholas Smith of
Burwardesleg the land which William Fitz Goderich held in
Burwardesleg, and 5 acres in Switfeld, in lien of the land of Hurste
which Goderich, William's Father, held (said 5 acres being situate,
2 beyond the Denesti, 1 in the culture of Baredis, 1 above the
Longeforlong, and 1 in the culture of Hargreve) . The entrance-fee
is 10 merks ; the reserved rent 6*. The tenant and his heirs to
have husbot and haybote in the Lord's wood, where his other free
men have common-right, and all easements for himself and his
animals. He may assign the premises to whom he will, except
religious houses. — Witnesses : Nicholas de Wilileg, William Parson
of Burwardesleg, JohnTece, William le Forcer, Stephen de Swiney,
William de Swiney, John le .Got, Ralph de Kayleg, Adam Hesleg
(de Ashley), Alan de la Dene, Warner his son, William Carpenter,
and others. 47

By the next deed "Philip de Burwardesle, in his full power,
concedes and confirms to Ralph Cutuel Clerk the land which he
had before given to Geoffrey Fitz Nicholas." The same premises
are described and the same rent reserved "as" (says the Grantor)
" the Charter which I made to Geoffrey testifies, because the same
Geoffrey, in my Court, hath given the said land to the afore-
named Ralph, and hath delivered to him the Charter which I made
him thereof, and hath attorned the said Ralph and his assignees to
render the aforesaid service to me. And I Philip, on Geoffrey's
resignation, have received the homage of Ralph in my Court/' For
this, Ralph paid 1 merk entrance-money. — Witnesses: Robert
de Haya, Walter de Huggeford, Robert de Stepelton, Roger
Sprengehos, Odo de Hodenet, Maddoc de Sutton, Henry de
Huggeford, Stephen de Suyney, Warin de BradeP, Roger de
Pynelesdun, William de Tonge, and Adam de Esse!. 48

By the third deed of this series Philip de Burwardesle gives to

<7 Charter at Willey. The Seal, of green
wax, is two inches in diameter, and nearly
entire. It bears a shield of arms (party
per fesse indented), and the legend —
Sigill' Philippi db Bttbwabdeslsg.

A former tenant of one of the acres
named in the deed is called Thwst, the
initial letter used by the scribe being }>
(the Saxon th). In the next deed the same
name is written Yust.

48 Charter at Willey. The Seal ia as the
last, but of rose-coloured wax, and attached
by a plaited cord of red silk. Both these
deeds hare been marked with a cross (ap-
parently at the time of execution) on the
lower margin. It is undoubtedly the mark
of the Grantor. The practice of affixing a
mark belonged rather to an earlier period
than the date of these deeds, but was rare
at any time.

Seal of S* James' Hospital, Bridgnorth.
{fcaelfol.l.j>.349)"

Seal of Philip dfi Burwardfisleg

BR08ELET. 17

Robert de Haya all the land and messuage in Burwardesle which
Geoffrey the Deacon, son of Nicholas, formerly held of him, and
which said Geoffrey afterwards sold to Ralph the Clerk, formerly
Rector of Burwardesle, and which Gilbert, brother and heir of
said Ralph, afterwards sold to the Grantor (Philip). Philip also
grants to the same Robert the messuage and curtilage which
belonged formerly to Quepith, daughter of Godric, near the Court of
the Parson of the said vill of Burwardesle. For this Robert de
Haye pays 8 merks on entry (in gersumam). The reserved rent
is a pair of white gloves. — Witnesses : Walter de Huggeford j Odo
deHodenet; Richard de Harleg, Clerk ; Madoc de Sutton ; Alan
Fitz Alvic of Bruges ; John de Burwarsleg. 48

Of Roger de Burwardsley, Philip's successor, I find some notices
during the life of his elder brother. On 12 March 1227, he attests
a Charter of Wenlock Priory. 60 He appears as claiming some
interest in Higley against Ralph de Mortimer of Wigmore, in
August 1228, and again in May 1229." The result of his suits
was a Fine dated Not. 21, 1236, whereby Ralph de Mortimer
granted feoffment of a carucate in HuggeP to Roger and his heirs. 68
Roger's claim had in the second instance been prosecuted under
writ of " mort d'ancestre," whereby I presume that it arose through
his mother, who must have been a second wife of Warin de Bur-
wardsley, otherwise Philip, elder brother of Roger and living in
1229 if not in 1236, could have been the only claimant under such
a writ.

Be that as it may, Roger de Burwardsley and another are
entered on a Roll, of date about 1240, as holding one knight's fee
in Hugeleg under Ralph de Mortimer. 68

The next notice which I have of Roger de Burwardsley involves
the fact of his decease previous to 12 Oct. 1243. On that day the
King's Writ, directing the usual Inquisition on the death of a
Tenant in capite, issued. 64

The Return reports that the Deceased " held two carucates in
Demesne in Esseleg, and seven virgates in villanage by service of
finding one horseman at Montgomery 6B for fifteen days : — that

* Copy in Mr. Blakeway's MSS., appa-
rently extracted from the Collections of
the well-known James Bowen.

w Momutieon, toL y, p. 74 j Notes,
No. 5.

« BoL Put. 12 Hen. Ill, and 18
Hen. III.

II.

« Fines at Salop, 21 Hen. III.

« Testa de Nevill, to. 228.

64 Inq. p. mort. 27 Hen. Ill, No. 28.

*» The services of Castle-Guard due to
Shrawardine were attorned to the Castle
of Montgomery early in the reign of
Hen. Ill ; — of which more hereafter.

BROSELET .

the land altogether was worth £5. 3*. 2d. (per annum), whereof
the widow of Philip de Burwardsley had a third : — that the three
sisters of Roger were his heirs, to wit, Mabel, the eldest, and
Alice, and Margery."

The result was that on 19 Feb. 1244, the King rendered to the
said three sisters the whole land which their brother Roger held in
capite in Asseleg, and received their homage thereof. The Sheriff
of Staffordshire was enjoined to take their security for payment of
100*. relief to the Crown, and to give them livery of the land in
question, saving to Mabel, the eldest sister, her esnecy M of the
aforesaid land. 67 They had accounted for the said 100*. before
Michaelmas 1245. 68

We must nowjsay something of each of these coheiresses. —

Mabel de Burwardsley, the eldest, has already been mentioned
under the name of Mabel le Strange, and as having, previously to
Michaelmas 1194, been married to Adam de Beysin. Though she
was now (1244) living, fifty years after her marriage, her husband
had been some time dead.

At his decease in 1238, he left by Mabel, Adam his son and
heir, a second son Warin, of whom presently, and a daughter
Margery, who about 1225 had married Thomas de Bagsore.

Adam de Beysin, son and heir of Adam, did not live long to
enjoy his paternal inheritance. He died Dec. 13, 1243, leaving
an only son and heir, Robert, about sixteen months old at his
father's death. During the first part of his very long minority
Robert's grandmother, Mabel, was yet alive and so representing
the interests of this branch of the family in one-third of Broseley.

We will first say what remains to be said of her. —

In the year 1244 or 1245, calling herself Mabel daughter of
Warin de Burwardesleg, she grants in lawful widowhood to Warin
her son all the land which by hereditary right had fallen or should
fall to her in the villa of Edulvescote (Arlscott) and of West
Bradeleye (Bradley near Broseley). The reserved rent is one pound
of pepper. — Witnesses: Sir Hugh de Upton, Sir Richard de
Leychton, Sir Thomas Corbet of Tasseleye, Sir Ralph d'Arraz,
Knights; Hugh de Lega, Thomas de Upton, John de Bechebir/
Henry, Clerk of Kinlet. 69

u The right of ohoosing first among
ooparoners in an estate.

*7 Sot.Fin.2SKm.IU,memb.S; and
Origiiudia, 28 Hen. Ill, memb. 3.

68 Rot. Pip. 29 Hen. Ill, Salop.

59 Dngdale's Extracts from Coyney
Deeds (ut supra). This deed had a Seal
charged with the device of a Spread Eagle

BROSELEY.

At Michaelmas 1247, Mabel de Burwardeleg appears as having
accounted half a merk to the Sheriff for some default. 80

An Inquisition, of September 1263, presently to be cited, speaks of
Mabel de Beysin having held dower in her former husband's lands ;
but the Record is so defaced that I can extract from it no inference
as to the period of her death or whether, as was barely possible,
she was living at the date of the Inquest. 61

Of Warin her younger son, and Margery her daughter, I shall
speak elsewhere ; but here of —

Robert de Beysin, grandson and heir of Mabel, who had, as I
have said, a very long minority and (his father having been a
tenant in capite) was in the first instance a ward of the Crown.
The King granted the said wardship to Sibil Giffard, who sold it
to Sir Baldwin Freville. The latter again sold it, either altogether,
or in so far as the marriage of the heir was concerned, to Sir Philip
le Bret. Hence the following statement by the jurors of Wenlock
Liberty in 1255. —

"Robert de BeyBsin is Lord of Burewardesleg, and of Edullescot
(Arlscot) and Bradeleg, and he holds of the Prior of Wenlock. He
does suit to the Court of the Prior as, before Richard Fs time, his
ancestors did suit to Munselowe Hundred. Robert was in custody
of the King. The King gave said custody to Dame Sibil Giffard,
she to Sir Baldwin Frevill, who sold Robert's marriage to Sir Philip
de Bret." •

The contemporary Inquisitions as to Robert de Beysin's other
Manors give additional information, e.g. under Wrickton we are
told that he was already married (he was only thirteen years of age)
to Philip le Bret's daughter, though Baldwin Freville is still called
his guardian ; under Silvington Philip le Bret is called his guardian,
and William de Freville under Billingsley. 68

Another Inquest (taken Sept. 22, 1263) informs us that Sibil

and the legend— S* Mabhib db Burx-

WABDSSLB0H.

* Sot. &p. 81 Hen. in, Salop.

■ Inquisitions, 47 Hen. Ill, No. 26.

* Sot Bund, ii, 84, 86. The tenure by
which Broseley was held of the Prior of
Wenlock was peculiar. The Lord of the
vill was to dine with the Prior on Saint
Milborg's Day and carve the principal
dirii at table. This service seems to hare
been discharged by the Beysins as repre-
senting the eldest co-heiress of Broseley.

It is mentioned in several Inquisitions
but with some variety ; for instance, in time
of Edward II, the day on which the ser-
vice was performed was Christmas Day,
and the Beysin of that time was to pay a
three days' visit to the Prior, and be en-
tertained, together with his suit, at the
Prior's charge. The Lords of Broseley
also owed suit to the Prior's Hundred-
Court at Burton, every three weeks.
" Ibidem, pp. 82, 83, 74.

BROSBLST.

Giffard conveyed the wardship of Robert to Sir William Deverenx. M
The latter certainly had it soon after 1255, but perhaps not im-
mediately from Sibil Giffard.

The temporary interest thus acquired by Sir William d'Everenx
in Broaeley is involved in many matters which affected his ward
equally with the other representatives of Roger de Burwardsley.
We shall therefore give such details in another place. Here we
will recount only those particulars which concern the guardian-
ship, and which are in themselves somewhat complicated.

At Michaelmas 1260, Robert de Beysin had fined 1 merk " to
have an assize." 6B He was in fact suing William Devereux and
Matilda his wife for the Manor of Billingsley, and, as I have before
mentioned, a Patent had issued for trial of the cause on July 20
previous. 06

Owing probably to this difference between the ward and his
guardian, an Inquisition was ordered to ascertain the age of the
former. Its report was to the effect that he would be 19 years of
age on August 15, 1261. 67

A second Inquest on the same question sat Sept. 22, 1268,
reported Robert as of full age on August 15 previous, and that he
was in ward to Sir William Devereux. 68

Sir William Devereux fell at the battle of Evesham (August 4,
1265), and though not on the Royalist side, a Patent dated Oct. 12
of the same year, grants his Manors of Hamme, Frome, and Wileby,
to his widow Matilda for her life. 69

Nor did Matilda's interest in Robert de Beysin's Manors of
Broseley and Billingsley cease with his minority, or the death of
her husband.—

As Matilda de Ebroicis, she grants in her lawful widowhood to
Geoffrey de Bosco of Burwardesleye and Margery his wife a mes-
suage and half-ferdendel of land in Burwardesleye, to have and to
hold for her (Matilda's) life.— Rent to be 3*. 8d. The Grantress
reserves suit of her own Court, as well as suit of the Hundred-
Court of the Prior of Wenlock. She gives them liberty to dig marl

64 Escheat, 47 Hen. IH, ffo. 26.

• Rot Pip. 44 Hen. in, Salop. Nova
oblate)

m Supra, VoL I, pp. 65, 66.

87 Inquintiont % 45 Hen. Ill, No. 47.
Not on February 2d, 1261, as I stated
before (Vol. I, p. 66).

» Ibidem, 47 Hen. Ill, No. 26. This
Inquest was inadvertently stated, under
Billingsley, to hare sat March 3, 1263.
There is some doubt about the dates, but
the abore is probably the true account.

* Patent, 48 Henry III.

BROSELEY.

in her marl-pit to dress their land.— Witnesses : Sir Nicholas de
Wodeford, Philip de Swyneye, William Dispensar of Wyleleye,
Nicholas de Dene, Wenne de Swyneye, &c. 70

It is very possible that this continued interference of Matilda in
Broeeley, arose from the early death of her late husband's ward.

Robert de Beysin was certainly deceased before he had long
completed his twenty-fifth year. On Sept. 19, 1267, the King
granted marriage of his widow Isabella to Hugh de Beaumes (as 1
shall show more fully under Tong), and in September 1272, the
said Isabella (daughter I presume of Philip le Bret) was reported
by the Stottesden Jurors as having remarried Robert deTurberville
without the King's assent. Their lands were ordered to be seized,
and the Sheriff was to cause their appearance in Court. 71 The
same Jurors also reported a murder in Isabella's household.
Richard, a boy in her service, had been killed by a man of Thomas
Botterel. 78

At this time Walter de Beysin, son and heir, I presume, of Robert,

was, as might be expected from what has been related of his Father,
in minority.
On Nov. 27, 1274, the Stottesden Jurors reported Hugh de

Beumeys as having custody of the Manors of Workiton and
Walkeslowe by the King's gift. 78

In 1284 however (as has already been shown under Billingsley)
Walter de Beysin was of age and subject to a prosecution by
Matilda Devereux. 7 * He was at the same .time in full possession
of his Manors of Wrickton and Walkerslowe. 7 *

At this point we may leave the subject of his succession, and
revert to the history of the other two coheiresses of Roger de
Burwardsley* —

Alice, the second of the three sisters, to whom livery of their
inheritance had been given in February 1244, was, like her elder
sister, a widow at the time.

In default of better evidence I must suppose that John de Eyton

* Charter at Wflley

* 8alopAMue*,&6 Hen. m, memb. 49.
71 Ibidem, memb. 48 dono.

» Rot. Hund. ii, 108. This custody
bad commenced previous to June 1271,
when I infer Robert de Beysin to have
been dead (Plac. coram 2&y*.Trin. Term
56 Hen. in, memb. 9 recto).

7* Supra, Vol. I, p. 66.

71 Kirby't Quest. At the tame time
Matilda Derereux is set down as holding
Longnebre (Longnor, Staffordshire, a
Manor of Walter de Beysin' s) under the
Baron Stafford (Shaw'* History of
Staffordshire, Vol. I, Introduction, p.

BROSELET.

of Water Eyton and Longnor (Staffordshire) had been the husband
of Alice. 76 If so he was a tenant at both places tinder Adam de
Beysin who married the eldest coheiress, and there is some proba-
bility that he and Adam were previously of kin.

Between the years 1244 and 1249, this Alice, calling herself
daughter of Warin de Burwardsley and a widow, grants to Amicia
her daughter all her land of inheritance in Adulvescote, with one-
third of the tenement which Dame Emma, formerly wife of her
Brother Philip, still held in dower in Burwardsley. Rent, lrf.
payable in Burwardsley. — Witnesses: Sir Thomas Corbet, Sir
Walter de Hugford, Sir Hugh Fitz Robert, Sir William de Hedleg,
Sir Richard de Lehcton, Sir Thomas de Constantine, Sir Madoc de
Sutton, Sir Hugh de Scheynton, Henry de Hugford, Warin de
Beysin, William deTong, Stephen de Swyney, Anian de Burwards-
ley, John son of John, &C. 77

Alice seems to have been succeeded in her share of Broseley, &c.
by Roger de Eyton, probably her younger son, who sat as a Juror
of Wenlock Liberty at the Assizes of January 1256. 78

On 16 Oct. 1258, Giles de Erdinton and others are appointed
Justices to try an Assize of darrein presentment brought by
Roger de Eyton and others against the Bishop of Hereford
and others, concerning the Advowson of the Church of Bur-

wardsle. 79

At Westminster, on the Octaves of Hilary 1259, Ralph de Coven
and Roger de Eyton appeared against Peter Bishop of Hereford,
William Devereux, and Matilda his wife, in a plea that the Defend-
ants should attend in Court to hear an Assize of darrein
presentment which the Plaintiffs had arraigned against them con-
cerning the Advowson of the Church of Broseley then vacant.

w Erdeswick says as much (pp. 116,
117, 168, Edition 1844) ; but whereas he
also says that the third coheiress married
Eyton, and was mother of John del Eyton,
and grandmother of Thomas del Eyton,
and great grandmother of John del Eyton,
and that Thomas Eyton sold Eyton and
Longnor to Sir Thomas Beysine about
10 Edw. I (1281-2), his evident ignorance
on the whole subject makes one hesitate
to accept any part of his assertions.

71 Coyney Evidences (ut supra). The
Seal had the device of a lion rampant.
If the first witness be Sir Thomas Corbet

of Tasley the date of the deed will be
1244-1247 in which latter year he died.
If however it be Thomas Corbet of Caus,
the date will be 1248-1249, in the first of
which he became Sheriff, and in the last
of which Sir Hugh Fitz Robert was dead.
Compare the deed of Mabel de Burwards-
ley (supra, note 59).

7* Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb.
12 recto (Placita Corona). Soger how-
ever must have held under the elder
brother.

7* Rot. Pat. 42 Hen. Ill, dorso.

BROSELEY.

The Defendants appeared not, and were summoned for the Octaves
of the Purification (Feb. 9). 80

On that day they came not; so the Assize was to be taken " by
default/' but was afterwards adjourned to the Quinzaine, of Easter. 81
The Soils of Easter Term 1259 are lost, and the result of this cause
does not appear.

In the same Term (Hilary 1259) in which this, suit commenced,
another was instituted which concerned most of the parties.

On Feb. 9, John Tezste (Tece) offered himself against William
Devereux, Hugh de Baskerville, Robert de la Male, Osbert de
Coven, Alan de Paunton, William de Swynye, Thomas de Bosco,
Ralph de Coven, Ivo de Paunton, Roger de* Eyton, Anian de
Burwardesle, and Stephen de Hull, in a plea of trespass. They had
broken the stank of John's Vtvary in Burwardesle and Wilyleye,
and carried off the fish. They had made several defaults previously
and did not now appear. So the Sheriff was to have them bodily
in Court on the Octaves of the Holy Trinity.**

I can trace nothing further of this suit, but some years after-
wards the question of the Advowson of the Church was again in
agitation. —

March 13, 1263. Roger de Eyton sat on a Forest Inquisition
at Brug. 88

On the Quinzaine of Easter 1271, William son of William
Devereux appears by his Essoigner against Matilda widow of
William Devereux, in a plea that she should appear in Court to
hear a recognition of darrein presentment, which the Plaintiff had
arraigned against her and Roger de Eyton and Geoffrey de Pychford,
concerning the Church of Burwardsle. The cause was adjourned
to the morrow of Ascension Day. 84

We shall presently see that in all this litigation each of the thi$e
Coparcners in Broseley were represented.

At the Assizes of October 1272, the Jurors of Wenlock Liberty
reported how Roger de Eyton and Petronilla his daughter had
previously accused, in the County Court, Robert de Benethall,
Hugh his brother, and John de Kantreyn, of rape and robbery, and

» " Placitoapud Wesim. Hilary Term
48 Hen. Ill, memb. 4 recto, and 46
dono.

Ibidem memb. 25 recto. The suit
had commenced in the previous year.
Among the Nova Oblata at Michaelmas

1258 is one by John Tece of half a merk,
pro habendo brevi.

" Inquisitions, 46 Hen. Ill, No. 81.

84 Placita. Easter Term 65 Hen. Ill,
memb. 7 recto.

BROSELEY.

Philip de Benethall of aiding and abetting. The case, it appears,
had been carried from the County-Court to the hearing of the
King, but had not yet been settled. 86 In the mean time the
parties had accorded among themselves. As however the King* 9
peace was involved in the question, the Jurors were now obliged
to prosecute it. They acquitted the defendants of robbery, but
found them all guilty of a forcible attack on Roger de Eyton's
house in Broseley and the abduction of his daughter. Hugh de
Benthall, guilty of the further crime charged above, was ordered
to be instantly arrested (or retained in custody). 86

At the same Assizes, the Stottesden Jurors reported that Roger
Fitz Denys of Burwardsle, having accused Philip le Mouner of
Benthal of robbery, and being in pursuit of him, the latter turned
to defend himself on the bridge of Brug and was killed in the con-
flict which ensued. Roger was arrested for murder, but by the
King's precept had been given into custody of certain sureties, viz.
Ralph de Caueleg (Caughley), Anian de Burwardel, John de Bur-
wardel, Nicholas de la Dene, Adam Fitz Denys, &c. Since then,
Sibil, widow of Philip, had challenged Roger in the County-Court,
so that he was yet in prison. The Jurors now found that he slew
Philip le Mouner in self-defence. 87

Before I quit the matter of Alice de Eyton's interest here, it may
be proper to say that the head branch of her descendants (under
whom it is probable that the above Roger de Eyton held) never
resided at Broseley, but in Staffordshire.

Some former mis-statements as to her succession should be briefly
rectified. Alice was succeeded at Ashley in 1252 by her eldest son
John de Eyton, and he by another John who died in 1290. Again
a John de Eyton followed, who, having been born in 1266, died in

85 We have some record of what had
taken place before the King in this prose-
cution. On June 9, 1269, Petronilla de
Eyton appeared to prosecute the four de-
fendants for rape and breaking the King's
peace. The Sheriff was ordered to arrest
them and keep them in custody till Oct. 6,
and then to have their bodies before the
King (Plac. coram Rege, Trin. Term
63 Hen. Ill, memb. 14 dorso).

On that day (Oct. 6) Petronilla again
appeared to support a charge of rape and
robbery. The Sheriff, it seems, in case he
could not find the defendants, had been

ordered to require them to appear before
himself and the Keepers of the Pleas of
the Crown and proceed to outlaw them.
He now reports that Robert de Benthall
and John de Kantreyn were not found.
So he was again ordered to outlaw them
and have their bodies in court on Nor. 18.
He was at the same time to produce Hugh
de Benthall whom he had in custody
(Plao. coram liege, Mich. Term 53 and
64 Hen. Ill, memb. 2 recto).

« Placita Corona, 66 Hen. Ill, Salop,
memb. 25 recto.

87 Ibidem, memb. 49 dorso.

BROSELEY. 25

1300, leaving a son and heir, Thomas, a Minor not then seven
years of age. This Thomas is said to have sold his share of Ashley
to Sir Thomas Beysin. 88 Something of the same kind must have
happened in regard to the Eytons 1 share of Broseley, but when the
alienation took place or who was the Vendor, I cannot determine.

It remains to speak of Margery, who in 1244 had livery of one
third of Ashley as the youngest of the three Sisters and Coheirs of
Roger de Burwardsley. She had been some time wife of John Bagot
of Blymhill (Staffordshire), but had long been a Widow. As early as
November 1229, I find her in litigation with Roger la Zuche of
Tong, under the name of Margery Baggot. 89 Their suit concerned
Blymhill, where Margery will have been then seized of dower, if not
more extensively interested on behalf of her children, and where I
believe La Zuche had some claim of a seigneural kind hereafter to
be noticed.

In a Record which must be of date about 1240, the Heirs of
John Bagot are said to hold two fees in Blimenhul and Brinton
under the Barons Stafford. 90

These heirs of John Bagot were, I think, four daughters, but I
can give particulars of no more than three, viz. Philippa wife of
Geoffrey de Bromley, * * * wife of William de Ipstones, and
Margery wife first of Ralph de Covene, and, secondly of William
de Drayton. The fourth daughter, I imagine, married a Pichford,
branches of which family came to be interested both in Blymhill
and Broseley, and if in one instance by purchase, yet in the other,
I think, by inheritance.

But I must first speak of Margery de Burwardsley the Mother
of these Coheiresses. She must be presumed to have succeeded to
her share of Broseley coincidently with the period of her Brother's
death, and her livery of one-third of Ashley; i. e. in 1243 or 1244.
Soon after this, and calling? herself Margery Fitz Warin, she granted
to Ralph de Covene, and Margery her daughter, and the heirs of
their bodies, her interest, or most of it, in Broseley, To secure this
grant a fine was levied at Salop on Nov. 8, 1248, in form following —

" Erdeswick's Staffordshire (Edition
1844), p. 117, where three generations of
this family are absorbed into one : indeed
Erdeswick's accounts of the families of
Burwardsley, Beysin, and Bromley, are
altogether inaccurate, — some excuse for

II. 4

my prolixity in verifying statements which
constitute a general contradiction of all
that he wrote on the subject.

» Sot. Pat. 14 Hen. Ill, dorse

90 Testa de NeviU, fo. 210.

BROSELET.

"This is the final concord &c. between Ralph de Cone and
Margery his wife, Plaintiffs (Qucrentes), and Margery de Blomen-
hull, Defendant (Impedientem), of half a carrucate and two merks
rent in Burewardeleg whereof was a plea of warranty of Charter.
Margery de Blomenhull acknowledges the right of the Plaintiffs, as
of the gift of herself; — to have and to hold, to Ralph and Margery
(his wife), and the heirs of the latter. For this the Plaintiffs gave
one sore sparrow-hawk." 91

Margery de Blymhill's abandonment of her interest here to her
daughter, wife of Ralph de Covene, long before her own death will
also appear in another way. About January 1250, Geoffrey de
Langley and his Fellow Justices were commissioned to visit several
Counties for the purpose of fixing an annual rent on all those
portions of the King's Forests which had been reduced into culti-
vation by private individuals. Whatever the period of their visit
to Shropshire, three years such rent had been paid before
Michaelmas 1252, by sundry persons assessed in the Arrentaiion-
Roll of these Justices. Thus Ralph de Cove and Robert Beysin are
put in charge for 6rf. annually, in respect of half an acre in
Borewardel, and had paid the said arrears. 92

In 1255, William de Ypstans, Ralph de Covene, Geoffrey de
Bromley, and Richard de Pychford appear as joint Lords of Blym-
hill, 93 which gives an approximate idea as to the coheirship of
John Bagot and of his wife Margery.

The latter however was still living, and appears to have survived
till 1259. The Inquisition on her death, as a tenant in capite
bears date 10th May, 43 Hen. Ill (1259), and reports of her as
follows —

That " Margeria de Blumenhull held one third of Ascheleye by
payment to the king of half a merk whenever a Scutage was levied.
She also paid 7s. per annum to Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. The wife of
Geoffrey de Bromle, whose name was Phelipe, was Margery's heir
in respect of three parts of Ashley, and John son of William de
Ipston was heir of the other quarter. Phelipe was thirty years of
age and John twenty-six." 94

" Pedes linium, 3d Hen. Ill, Salop.
Ralph de Core accounted 2 merks for
his fine for license to accord. (Mot. Pip.
34 Hen. Ill, Salop).

M Bot. Pip. 38 Hen. m. The lands

free of " waste and regard " for ever, i.e.
they were exempted from view of the
Foresters, and from an y charge of waste
or damage done to the Forest.
M Rot. Hund. ii, 144.

thus charged were thenceforward to be I 9 * Inquisitions, 43 Hen. Ill, No. 12 b.

BROSELEY. 27

On the 12th of June following " the King received the homage of
Geoffrey de Bromle, who married Philippa, daughter and one
(alteram) of the heirs of Margery de Blymenhull, and of John de
Ipstones, grandson (nepotis) and other heir of the same Margery,
for all lands and tenements which said Margery had held of the
king tit capite" Philip de Legh was to take security from said
Geoffrey, Philippa, and John for their Relief and give them seizin.
" And because the said Margery had long before her death enfeoffed
Philippa and John in the said lands, and they asserted themselves
to have been already ten years in possession, Philip de Legh, if he
finds that to be the case, shall restore to them all receipts which he
had had off the said lands since they had been seized into the
King's hands " (on the death of Margery). 96

From what has now been said it would appear that Margery de
Blymhill divided her estates both at Ashley and Broseley at least ten
years before her own death, and in that division she excluded one
if not two of her coheirs from all share in Ashley. Were this
point not particularized, the terms of the Inquisition and Precept
just recited might lead to the erroneous inference that she had only
been Mother of two daughters.

We now return to Ralph de Covene and his wife Margery, one
of the daughters and coheirs thus mentioned.

Ralph had his name from Coven (near Shareshill, Staffordshire), a
Manor which he held under the Barons Stafford. In the year
following that in which he and his wife secured by fine their
interest in Broseley, i. e. in the year 1249, he was appointed
Justice for gaol- delivery at Brug. 96

In the year 1255, he appears not only as Lord of Covene and a
Coparcner in Blymhill, but as Seneschall of the King's Forests in
Staffordshire. 97 In August 1256, he occurs as holding the same
office in the Royal Forest of Feckenham (Worcestershire) . 98

His concern in Broseley, in 1259, has already been set forth,
and this is the latest notice which I have of him, except that
between that year and 1262 he concurred with his wife Margery in
demising their joint interests in Broseley to Geoffrey de Picheford

The age of Philippa de Bromley is eer-
tainlj understated, and probably very
much understated, in this Inquest. Her
Father had been dead thirty years, and
she was the eldest of three if not four of
his daughters. Moreover if her younger

Sister's son was twenty-six, she herself
cannot have been much less than fifty.
w Rot. Fin. 43 Hen. Ill, memb. 6.

* Supra, Vol. I, p. 278.

* Rot. Hund. ii, 114, 115.

w Rot. Fin. 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 7.

BROS RLE Y.

for a term of years," and that before that term expired Ralph him-
self was dead. He left Margery his widow surviving, who soon after
remarried to William de Drayton. He also left two or more
daughters, of whom Alice the eldest was wife of Robert de Pende-
ford at the time of her Father's death. From this Robert and
Alice, Geoffrey de Picheford obtained a grant in fee of the whole of
what had been Ralph de Covene's interest in Broseley, but whereas
Margery Ralph's widow was surviving, this feoffment and the 40*.
annual rent which it reserved to the Feoffors were obviously more
than they could grant or receive, with any show of justice. 100

Shortly after this transaction Robert de Pendeford died, when
his widow Alice renewed the bargain with Geoffrey de Picheford in
form following, —

" Know all men that I, Alice eldest daughter of Sir Ralph de
Covene, in my liege widowhood, of my certain knowledge, and by
the advice of my friends, and not under constraint, have given, &c.
to Geoffrey de Picheford and his heirs all my land of Borewardeslee
which my Lord Robert de Pendeford and I formerly made over to
him, with the third part of the Advowson of the Church, and the
third of the Dower of the Lady (Emma widow of Philip de
Burwardsley) when she shall chance to die. — Rendering to me and
my heirs 40$. annually under the same distraint as is more fully
contained in the Charter which passed between my Lord Robert
de Pendeford and me and the same Geoffrey on the subject. —
Witnesses: Hugh de Bolingale, William de Perton, Philip de
Beckebur, John de Grenehul, William de Umfreston, Ralph de
Kachylee, Philip de Swyneye, John de Bispeston Clerk, &c/" 101

The next event in this somewhat complex story was the re-
marriage of Alice, widow of Robert do Pendeford, to Thomas Sany :
and now the question seems first to have arisen whether Alice

w At the Forest Assizes of Feb. 1262,
Ralph de Cove appears subject to an
amercement of 12 merksfor having hounds
within limits of the Forest without war-
rant (Forest Plea*, No. 4, memb. 5
recto) : and the debt was still unpaid at
Michaelmas 1267 (Rot. .Pip. 51 Hen. Ill,
Salop). That Geoffrey de Pichford ac-
quired an interest in Broseley before 1262
is proved by his being amerced at the
same Forest Assizes for some default levied
by the Justices on Edulvescot (Arlsoott)

(Forest Pleas, Salop, No. 4, memb. 5
dorso). As a coincidence with this I
should observe that one Roger de Pych-
ford sat as a Juror on the Wenlock In-
quisition of Jan. 1256 (Assize Roll, memb.
12 recto).

100 These particulars are from the
pleadings in a subsequent law-suit.

101 Charter at Willey. The date of this
deed is sufficiently pointed out by the
context, viz. as between 1259 and 1271.

BROSELEY. 29

bad any right to deal exclusively with a third of this Manor during
the lifetime of her Mother Margery. Accordingly William de
Drayton and the said Margery sued Geoffrey de Pichford, the
tenant, under a writ of dower in the County Court. Geoffrey
called to warranty his Feoffor Alice and her then husband Thomas
Sany. —

They, not venturing to vouch such warranty (timentes war-
rant iam), treated at once with William de Drayton and Margery,
and came to an agreement whereby the latter were to withdraw
their writ against Geoffrey de Pichford and receive 20*. out of the
said 40*. rent during the life of Margery, Geoffrey de Pichford
being authorized so to pay the same. —

But this concord did not endure ; for in Hilary Term 1272, at
Westminster, Thomas Sany ("Sayne") and Alice his wife are found
suing Geoffrey de Pichford and Mary his wife for performance
of customs, rents, and services due in Burwardele. 103 The cause
was adjourned to the morrow of Ascension, but did not come on
lor actual trial till the County Assizes in September, and then
in a different form: for " Thomas and Alice sued William de
Drayton and Margery for 20*. rent in Burwardsle, which Alice
used to receive from Geoffrey de Picheford, with other 20*., from
one-third of a carrucate of land there." los William and Margery
replied that "they had the said 20*. as of the dower of Margery
and by gift of Ralph de Covene her former husband, one of whose
heirs Alice was." The Plaintiffs here availed themselves of this
misapplication of the term dower, saying that " Ralph de Covene
never was tenatit (sole), because the tenement was once Margery
Fitz Warin's, who in her widowhood gave it to Ralph de Covene,
his wife Margery (Margery Fitz Warin's daughter) and their
heirs, of their bodies, by a Charter," which they (the Plaintiffs) now
produced, "whereby," said the Plaintiffs, "Margery William's
wife was joint tenant with her former husband Ralph (habuit
quantum Radulphus), and Ralph could not give her dower of such
tenement." —

The Defendants acknowledged all this, and in reply recited the
previous proceedings, viz. the term granted by Ralph de Covene
and Margery his wife to Geoffrey de Pichford, the death of said
Ralph, the feoffment granted by Robert de Pendeford and Alice,

m Placiia apud Wertm. Hilary Term, l 10B .Salop Assist, 66 Hen. Ill, memb.
66 Hen. Ill, memb. 27 recto. | 6 recto.

30 BKOSELEY.

the suit of William de Drayton and Margery in the County Court,
and the concord in which that suit had ended and which now the
Plaintiffs sought to set aside.

Here the proceedings of September, 1272, suddenly terminate
with a note purporting that the Plaintiffs withdrew their pro-
secution.

Soon after this Geoffrey de Pichford compounded his obligation
to pay 40*. rent to Thomas Sany and his wife Alice ; indeed we may
say that he bought up their whole interest in the Manor of
Broseley. A fine was levied at Westminster in Michaelmas Term
1274 between Geoffrey de Pychford Plaintiff (querentem), and
Thomas Pani (so written) and Alice his wife, Impedients, of
40*. rent, one-third of a carrucate of land, and one-third the
Advowson of the Church of Burwardesley, whereby Thomas and
Alice surrendered the whole, as the right of Geoffrey, by their own
gift : — to hold to Geoffrey and his heirs, of Thomas and Alice, and
the heirs of Alice for ever : — rendering therefore to the Vendors
one clove 1041 yearly, and performing in their stead all services due
to the Lords of the Pee. For this Geoffrey paid 30 merks. 105

This fine was followed by another, levied at Westminster on
July 1, 1275, whereby Henry de Parco and Margery his wife,
Impedients, surrendered to Geoffrey de Pycheford and Mary his
wife, Plaintiffs (querentes), a ninth share of the Manor and Advow-
son of Burwardesle, whereof was a plea of warranty : — to hold to
Geoffrey and Mary, and the heirs of Geoffrey, of Henry and
Margery, and the heirs of Margery, for ever : — rendering a rose
yearly and performing all capital services. For this the Plaintiffs
paid 60 merks. 106

I cannot identify the interest thus bought up ; but if it were
the contingent one of Margery de Coven she will, after 1272,
have married a third husband, and her former claims have received
ample recognition. Leaving her, it remains to say that her
daughter Alice de Coven, de Pendeford, or Sany, seems to have
been succeeded at Coven by the issue of her first husband Robert
de Pendeford, who eventually assumed her name " de Covene."
I trace nothing further of her seigneural interest in Broseley, repre-
sented only by the receipt of a nominal rent.

104 " Unum claTum gariophili," — a no-
minal rent as commonly reserved at this
period as the well-known pepper-corn
rent of later usage.

105 Pede* Finium, 2 Edw. I, Salop,
No. 4.
™ Ibidem, No. 5.

BROSELEY.

In 1279, Geoffrey de Pychford appears to be Patron of Broseley
Church, as was his Son Richard in 1310.

But we should say something of Geoffrey, as of a much more im-
portant personage than his purchases in Broseley would indicate. —

When in November 1271, the Justices of the King's Forests
visited the County, he appears as " Seneschal of all the Forests of
Salop," an office superior to that of John Fitz Hugh of Bowlas,
who follows him on the Record as Capital Forester. 1 ^

But he was more than this. In 1280, he is charged with the
sale of all old oak-trees within and without the King's Park of
Windsor. In 1281, he was appointed Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex ;
in 1283, he appears as Constable of Windsor Castle ; and in 1299,
being dead, the Executors of his will are ordered to give up to
another the Castle and Forest of Windsor with all stores, &c. for the
King's behoof. 108

He was succeeded at Broseley by his son Richard, of whom all
that I shall say is, that on Nov. 3, 1312, he conveyed to Richard de
Harlce and Burgia his wife all his land in Borewardeslee, with the
capital messuage, Advowson of the Church, homages, services, suits
of free men and natives, and two mills near the Dene, to hold to
them and their heirs, rendering to the chief Lords all due services.
— Witnesses : Walter de Huggeford, William le Forcer, Hugh le
Fitz Ayer, Knights, Thomas de Beysin, Geoffrey de Kinsedeleye,
John de Aldenham, Richard de Knyghteleye, and others. Dated
at Westminster, on the morrow of All Souls, in the sixth year of
Edward, son of King Edward. 109

Having now completed our account of the principal interests in
this Manor we should say something of the various Under-tenants.
The names and occupancies of many of these will have been inti-
mated by the documents already cited. A few more quotations
will supply some further evidence of the same kind.

Hugh son of Walter de Mancestre grants to Robert de Haya,
for his homage and service, all his land in Burwardeleg which
Roger le Palmer held of his (Hugh's) Father, viz. that which is
called Palmers-Croft and that called The Dune, with a messuage
and a culture called The Rudinge, between the land of Adam Fitz

W Forest Pleas, Salop, Nob. 6 and 6,
memb. 1.

108 Originatick, passim sub annis.

109 Charter at Willey.

BR08ELEY.

William of Esleg (Ashley) and land once held by Adam Fitz
Eylward and abutting on the wood of the Lord of the vilL — To
hold to Robert and his heirs, rendering 12tf. at Michaelmas. For
this Robert pays on entry six merks. — Witnesses : Ralph de Suhtleg,
Henry and Otuel his brothers, Walter de Huggeford, Nicholas de
Wylileg, James then Chaplain of Burward', John Teyce, Stephch
de Swyneye, Henry de Huggeford, John de BurwanP, Adam de
Esleg, William Carpenter, Lucas de Grane and others. 110

Robert de Haya, the Grantee here, has already appeared as first
witness to one Charter of Philip de Burwardesley and as his Feoffee
in another. The dates of all Shropshire deeds in which he is con-
cerned will probably be ascertained by stating his general and
higher connections with the County. He was Deputy to Peter de
Rivallis who entered upon office as Sheriff on July 11, 1232. The
latter being removed early in 1 234, Robert de Haya was on March
25, appointed sole Custos or Sheriff, and so continued till Nov. 4,
1236. 111

In Nov. 1240, he visited Shrewsbury as a Justice Itinerant, in
company with Robert de Lexinton, Ralph de Sulleg (the first witness
of the above deed), and others. Ten years afterwards he was
Fermor under the Crown of Arley (on the borders of Shropshire) ;
and nothing further can I say of him. The above deed I imagine
to have passed in 1240, a date which becomes still more probable
from the fact that Ralph Baron Sudley, of Gloucestershire, the first
Witness, was lately deceased on March 19, 1242.

I think it probable that Robert de Haya's interest in Broseley
passed to William de Haya, who, being also Rector of the Church,
enfeoffed a relation, John Fitz Silvester of Souldern (Oxon.), in his
lay possessions here.

This John Fitz Silvester of Sulthorn (Souldern) grants by deed
to Thomas his Son all the said land, with reliefs escheats, &c. to
hold of the Lords of the fee by usual services. — Witnesses : Sir
Ranulf de Ardene Knight, Adam de Bray, William de Overthon,

"° Charter at Wffley.

in Fuller gives a Robert de Haya as
Sheriff or Under- Sheriff of Oxfordshire
in 1227, of Berkshire in 1229, and of Ox-
fordshire again in 1230, 1231, and 1232
(Fuller' 9 Worthies, p. 102). A William
de Hay held the same office in Oxfordshire
from 1240 to 1245.

There was also a Robert de Hay Rector
of Souldern (Oxon.) towards the end of
Henry Ill's time, and who is said by
Kennett to have been of the Baronial
family whose coheiress, Nichola de Hay,
had married Gerard de Camville (Paro-
chial Antiquities, pp. 187, 604).

BROSELEY.

Richard Brun, Henry Bran, Philip de Fretewell, Roger de Eython,
Philip de Suneye (Swiney), Henry le Forcer. 112

By another deed which passed between 1262 and 1272, Thomas
Silvester of Sulthorn grants to Jurdan de Hay his cousin (con-
sanguineo) without reservation all the land which he had in
Burwardesle by feoffment of John his Father. — Witnesses : Ranulf
de Ardern, Henry Brun, Richard Brun, Alan de Mildenhale, Adam
de Toresmer, John White (Albus) of Cotesford, Robert Rikeward,
Philip de Sweneye, Henry lc Forcer, John de Prestop. 118

BROSELEY CHURCH.

I have said something already of the vast parochial Jurisdiction
which was in ancient times divided among the few Saxon Churches
of this County.

The Church of Saint Milburg at Wenlock claimed and exercised
the spiritual cure of a district which was bounded along its whole
Southern frontier by the almost equal parish of Saint Gregory of
Morville.

The Manor of Broseley stood within the bounds of Saint Mil-
burg's Parish; and the Church or Chapel which was founded at
Broseley in the twelfth or fourteenth century was so founded as
subject to the Mother Church of Wenlock.

Doubtless the work was that of a Layman, and probably of the
contemporary Lord of the Fee.

In token of its affiliation on the Church of Saint Milburg, and
probably as a condition of its origin, the Incumbent of the Church
or Chapel of Burwardsley was taxed with an annual pension of 2$. ,
payable at the feast of St. Nicholas to the Mother Church. 114

u» Charter at Willey. This Deed cer-
tainly passed between the years 1248 and
1272. The first six witnesses all belong
to Souldem (Oxon.), a Manor which Sir
Ralph de Erderne (or Ardern) held in
1255 of the Barony of Richard's Castle.
Fritwell is an adjoining Manor. (Rot,
Hmnd. ii, 44).

m Charter at Willey. Again the first
seren witnesses belong to Oxfordshire.
The Inquest on Ploughley Hundred taken
in 1279 mentions Bandulph de Arderne,
Thomas Silvester, Adam de Overton, and
Richard Brun, as tenants in Sulthorn
Manor. Also Alan de Tursmere, John

II.

Albus of Coteford, and Robert Rikeward,
appear in the same Record. (Rot.]Rund.
ii, 823, &c.)

IM Register at Willey, fo. 87. This
pension seems to have been allotted to
the Sacristan of the Mother Church,
which may account for its not appearing
in more general Rolls of the receipts of
the Priory. It was recited and confirmed
to Wenlock, with other pensions, on May
27, 1331, in a formal declaration by
Thomas Bishop of Hereford, then visiting
his diocese and being at Morville (Pat.
22 Edw. Ill, p. 3, m. 34).

BROSELEY.

No cure of souls went with the new foundation, and consequently
the Incumbent was usually beneficed elsewhere. In the absence
of any Chartulary of Wenlock Priory we must infer the date of
foundation from other evidence.

In 1291, the Church or Chapel of Burewardsleye in the Deanery
of Wenlock was valued at £6. 13*. 4d. per annum, and the Rector
was elsewhere beneficed. 116

In 1341, this Taxation of 10 merks was made a basis of the
current assessment of this Parish to the ninth; but the Assessors
allowed a considerable abatement, and exacted only 42*. The
reasons were because the growing corn had been destroyed by
great tempests, because a large proportion of the Parish lay
uncultivated, owing to the poverty of the Tenants, and because the
glebe and small tithes of the Chapel contributed to swell the
greater sum (10 merks) and were not rateable on the present
occasion. 118

In 1535, Edmund Michell was Rector of Broseley and Lynley ;
the value of his preferment in glebe and tithes averaged £&. 5s. 8d.
per annum, and the only charges thereon were for Archdeacon's
Synodals and Procurations, 7s. 2d. 117

EASLY INCUMBENTS.

William Parson of Burwardesleg has already appeared attesting
a deed about a. d. 1230.

Ralph Cutuel, Clerk, seems, by deeds already cited, to have suc-
ceeded to this preferment very shortly afterwards and to have died
before 1242, — the latest date assignable to that Charter which speaks
of him as a former Rector, and makes mention of his heir.

Another William is, I find, mentioned as having been Rector of
Broseley in 1241. 118 If this be correct he will perhaps be the
same with that William de Haya, Parson of Burwardsley, who
granted lay possessions here, before 1272, to John Silvester of
Souldern.

1B Pope Nick Taxation, p. 167. A
valuation of the possessions of Wenlock
Priory, dated 6 Sept. 1379, estimates a
third of the advowBon at four merks per
annum, the Prior being then entitled to
each third presentation (Mon. v, 78, yiii).
This would make the Living worth £8. per
annum. The Prior was at the same time
Lord of a third of the Manor.

116 Inq. Nonarum y p. 187. Capella de
Borwasley.

"7 Valor Eccletuutieus, iii, 208.

118 Blakeway MBS. apparently quoting
a MS. of Mr. Godolphin Edwards. James,
Chaplain of Burward', who attests about
1240, will probably have been a Deputy,
or a Chantry Priest.

BROS ELK Y.

We have already seen this Church vacant in October 1258, and
January 1259. Another vacancy in 1271 is probably indicated
by the proceedings then instituted relative to the right of pre-
sentation.

Oct. 29, 1279, the Bishop of Hereford collated John de Brug
Subdeacon to this Church, exercising a right which had devolved to
him under authority of a general Council, but declaring the right
of patronage to be vested thereafter in Sir Geoffrey de Pychford. 119

Robert Turburville was Rector of this Chapel from about 1290 to
1300. He held therewith the Parish Church of Whethulle (Wheat-
hill), which involved a cure of souls. This tenure in plurality would
not have been legal without a Papal dispensation, had Broseley
been a Cure also. As this Incumbent had no such dispensation,
that fact was afterwards alleged in proof of Broseley being without
Cure of Souls. 180

Richard de Pycheford was the next Incumbent of Broseley. He
held the Chapel " a long time" (apparently ten years), and with it
the Curative Church of Covelham in Winchester Diocese.

Aug 15, 1310, the Bishop instituted to this Chapel Geoffrey de
Pychford on the presentation of Richard de Pychford. Geoffrey
was Brother of the last Incumbent. In 1314 he had Episcopal
license to study for three years. He held together with
Broseley, a Curative Church "in Salisbury Diocese, near to
Windsor Forest, and the Town of Bray." At his death and
previous to 1332, —

Sir John Aaron had succeeded to the preferment. He then held
together with this Chapel the Church of Madeley, which involved
a cure of souls. Aaron was subjected to some proceedings by his
Diocesan as a Pluralist. —

On Saturday, January 18, 1332, the Bishop's Commissary,
Stephen de Salop, Rector of Oldbury, heard the case in the Parish
Church of Wenlock. The first Witness — Walter de Caleweton,
Literate, a man of more than sixty-eight years of age — proved from
his own recollections for forty-two years the principal facts above
recited. 121 The issue of the suit does not directly appear, but as
Aaron resigned the " Free Chapel of Bourgwardesleye," not till
25 Sept. 1359, his tenure as a Pluralist would seem to have

m Ibidem, quoting Hereford Register.

130 Robert de Turburville has already

occurred as a Prebendary of Brug in 1291

and 1292 (Supra, VoL I, p. 75).

121 Evidence for Sir John Aaron, &c.
(MS. at Willey).

36 BROSELEY.

been recognized, and the non-curative nature of this Chapelry may
be inferred.

On October 7, 1359, the admission of, —

Roger de Knightleye to this Free Chapel bears date at Bishops
Castle. The King was Patron by reason of the Priory of Wenlock
being in his hands in consequence of the war with France.

John de Burton, Custos of this Chapel, resigned it on June 6,
1381, for the Prebend of Taunton in the Cathedral of Wells, here-
tofore held by —

James de Byllingford, who was instituted to Broseley April 23,
1383, on a presentation of the Crown similar to the last. Billyng-
ford, called "Rector, Custos, or Master of this Free Chapel/'
resigned in 1385 ; and on May 11 —

Robert Calle, Clerk, of the Diocese of York, was instituted on the
King's nomination. 123 —

These successive presentations by the Crown do not, I think,
indicate that the Advowson was at any time the sole right of
Wenlock Priory. In two out of the three cases the King was per-
haps exercising a mediate right, like that which shall be noticed
under Badger.

ARLSCOT AND BRADLEY.

A glance at the Map will show the situation of these vills, the
latter of which was occasionally called West Bradley to distinguish
it from another Bradley in the same Liberty of Wenlock.

That either of these places was involved in the Domesday Manor
of Bosle is more than 1 will undertake to say. Possibly they were
Members of the greater Manor of Wenlock, but as their subsequent
tenure under the Priory, by the Lords of Broseley, associates them
with the latter Manor, I will give some account of them here,
though it may be inaccurate thus to class them under the Domesday
Hundred of Alnodestreu.

We have already seen Mabel de Burwardsley, about the year
1244, enfeoffing her younger son Warm de Bey sin in all her
interest in Edulvescote and West-Bradeleye at the nominal rent
of a pound of pepper. 123

Warin, thus and otherwise advanced, would seem to have been
founder of a second family of Bey sins.

Between 1244 and 12 19, he has been seen to attest the deed of his

122 Hereford Registers (Blakewaj M)SS.) | ^ Supra, p. 18.

BROSELEY.

Aunt Alice, whereby she conferred on her daughter her interests
in Arlscot and Broseley.

In 1255, Warin de Beyssin sat as a Juror for Stottesden Hun-
dred, 134 and again at the assizes of January 1256. 125 This pro-
bably arose from some feoffment in his Nephew's Manors of
Wrickton, Walkerslowe or Billingsley.

The Hundred Boll of 1255, which describes the tenures of
Manors in the Staffordshire Hundred of Cuddleston, writes him as
holding " 2 carrucates in Sluston of the Barony of Wenlock." 126

At the Forest Assizes of February 1262, 1 find Warin de Beyssin
in company with Ralph de Caughley, Philip de Swiney and William
le Masun, as a Regarder of the Forests of Morf and Shirlet, and
amerced for a careless return. 127 And this is a suitable occasion
to introduce a deed whereby he grants to Margaret his daughter
for her homage, &c. half his land in Edulvescote, to hold of him
and his heirs. — Witnesses: Sir Geoffrey de Uv?ton (Overton), Sir
Ralph d' Arraz, Hugh de Lega, Ralph de CakeP (Caughley), Philip
de Swyney, William de Hemton, &c. 128

I can say nothing more of Warin de Beysin ; but at the Assizes
of October 1272, Robert de Edlescote had been entered as a Juror
of Wenlock Liberty, and his name, for some cause, erased. 129 At
the Inquest of Nov. 27, 1274, he however was a member of a
similar panel. 130

I think it possible that this Robert de Arlscot was the same
person who as Robert de Beysin, and somewhat later in the cen-
tury, granted to Sir Walter de Beysin and his heirs an annual rent
of half a pound of pepper, receivable from certain tenements which
Richard Miller and Roger Bobur used to hold of the Grantor in West
Bradeleye. — Witnesses : William le Masoun of Moghale, Hugh de
Patinton, John de Brocton, John de Presthop, Roger de Weston,
Roger de Corfhul, Henry le Hethene de Laverden (Larden), and
others. 181

m Rot. Hund. ii, 81.

m Placita Corona*, 40 Hen. III.

"* Rot. Hund. ii, 115.—

Shuston ifl a mil adjacent to Longnor
which was a Manor of the Beysins. How
Wenlock Priory obtained a footing there
I cannot determine. The Beysins con-
tinued to hold it in the reign of Edw. II.

^ Forest Assize*, 46 Hen. Ill, memb.
5 recto and 6 recto.

128 Coyney Charters in Dugdale's MSS.

189 Tlacita Corona, 56 Hen. Ill, memb.
21 recto.

w Rot. Rund. ii, 110.

131 Charter at Willey. Mr. Blakeway
suggests the reign of Edward II (1307-
1327) as the probable date of this deed.
I hare placed it earlier. It would seem
to be a relinquishment of the mesne
tenure of the Grantor in the premises.
The seal bears the impression of a bird.

BR08ELEY.

THE DEAN.

A Tenement thus named> and which is traceable in more than one
modern locality, seems to have been within the Manor of Broseley,
and held by free Tenants, of the Lords of the Fee. Thus we have
Alan de la Dene and Warner his Son in attendance at the Manorial
Court about 1230 ; Thomas de la Dene a defaulter in due attendance
at the Assizes of October 1272 ; and Nicholas de Dene a Surety
for the appearance of Roger Fitz Denys at the same Assizes and
also a Juror for Wenlock Liberty at the Inquest of Nov. 27, 1274,
when he accused Thomas de Middlehope and William Canvile of
taking a bribe to remove him from some Assize. 188

SWINNEY.—

Another member of the Manor of Broseley was held by free
Tenants taking a name from the locality.

Of these Peter de Swinheie occurs Oct. 13, 1199; one, whose
name is transcribed Memun de Swiney, about 1220 ; Stephen de
Swiney at various times between 1230 and 1250 ; and Philip de
Swiney, who sat a Juror of the Liberty of Wenlock in 1255 and
January 1256, would appear to have been dead in February 1262.

Another Philip succeeded, who at the last date was a Regarder
of Morf and Shirlot Forests, and amerced for a faulty return.

In Hilary Term 1267, this Philip, in company with Hugh de
Bolinghale, Hamo le Botiller, and Roger de Ey ton, was being sued
at Westminster by Katherine de Lacy for a debt of 4 merks and
also for 2 years arrears of an annual rent of 10 merks, alleged to be
due from them to her. 188 At the Assizes of September 1272, he
was amerced with eleven other Jurors for some concealment, but
with Warner de Swyneye attended on the Jury for Wenlock
Liberty. The same Philip and Warner served as Jurors on the
Wenlock Inquisition of November 1274, 184, and were probably the
two witnesses who, as Philip and Wenne de Swyney, attested
Matilda Devereux' deed before quoted.

A William de Swyneye has already occurred in January 1259,

138 Rot. Bund, ii, 110.

m Plac. apud Westm. 51 Hen. Ill,
inemb. 6 recto. This alleged debt, which,
before the County Assizes of 1272, had
increased to 44 merks, was then sued for

by the Plaintiff. A Final Concord, not
preserved, was the result {Salop Assizes,
56 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 recto).
» Sot. Jfund. ii, 110.

UNLET.

and one Richard Suygg of Swiney is returned in February 1262 as
being then dead, whilst his son, another Richard Suygg, was still in
prison for having taken one of the King's deer 8 years before, viz,
on Sept. 22, 1253.

Within this Township the Abbey of Buildwas was some time
possessed of a Weir in the River Severn. —

Oct. 28, 1227, a fine was levied at Salop between Richard Fitz
Nicholas, Plaintiff (pe ten tern), and Stephen Abbot of Buildwas,
Tenant of a Weir (gurgite) in Swineie, whereof was suit of Mort
d'ancestre. The Abbot acknowledged Richard's right and surren-
dered the Weir, — to have and to hold, to Richard and his heirs,
under the Abbot and his Successors, at an annual rent of 15s. 185

fctnUp*

This place is not mentioned in Domesday. It never seems to
have been involved with Broseley or Willey, and therefore it is per-
haps inaccurate to treat of it under the Hundred of Alnodestreu.
It may in 1086 have been an outlying member of Wenlock Manor,
or it may have been a then unreclaimed portion of the Norman
Earl's Demesne, which we know included Shirlot Forest and other
places about which Domesday is equally silent.

At all subsequent periods I can speak of Linley only as a Manor
held in Socage 1 under the Priory of Wenlock, but whether that
seigneury existed at Domesday, or whether it was acquired early or
late in the following Century, no Record is forthcoming to in-
form us.

Richard de Linley, whoever held over him, was doubtless pos-
sessed of this Manor before the death of Henry I. Being also a
Tenant of Hamo Peverel at Sutton or Brockton, he attests about

m Pedes Finiwn, 12 Hen. Ill, Salop.

1 It will be sufficient in this instance
to describe the Tenure oy Socage nega-
tively. It was not a tenure by Knight's

service, and, whatever were the rights of
the Seigneurs! Lords, wardships, reliefs,
andmaxriagesof the Tenants were excluded.

LINLEY.

that period several of the said Baron's Charters to Shrewsbury
Abbey. 3 In one of these he is described as Richard son of Bald-
win de Lintlega, but of his Father so named I have seen no other
notice. 3

About 1150, Richard and Ralph de Linlega stand first lay-wit-
nesses to a Charter whereby Rainald Prior of Wenlock granted a
feoffment in the neighbouring vill of Posenal.*

I take it to be a second or possibly a third Richard de Linley
who between 1161 and 1172 occurs as last witness to two deeds
already quoted, under Broseley, as of that date, and as executed by
coheirs of Hamo Peverel.

In 1177, we have a Walter de Linley doubtless related to this
Richard, and who has been already noticed as a Grantee of Crown
Lands in Brug, afterwards enjoyed by Sibil de Linley. 5

At the Forest Assize of 1180, Richard de Linley stands next to
his neighbour Warner de Wililey as assessed in the sum of 2*.
by the Justices. About the same time and in company with the
same Warner and Warin de Burwardsley, he attests that invaluable
Charter of Corve which I am so often referring to.

The close of the Century introduces another Lord of Linley,
apparently the last in male succession. This was Philip de Linley,
who besides attesting nearly contemporary charters of Isabel de Say
to Wenlock and of Griffin de Sutton to Wombridge, appears in the
oft-cited Composition of 1196 (concerning Priors Ditton Church),
and in May 1200, was Recognizor in a law-suit which William
Fitz Alan II had against Gilbert de Lacy about land at Harnage. 6

The eventual Successors, perhaps the daughters, of this Philip
were two Coheiresses, one of whom seems to have become the wife
of William le Forcer, the other (Isolda) of Wido de Fernlawe
(Farlow) .

I shall have other opportunities of following the descent of these
Coparcners in Linley. Here I will state only that which relates
more immediately to the said Manor.

In 1255, Henry le Forcer, son and heir of the above-named
William, served on the Inquest as to Tenures in Wenlock Liberty.
The Manor of Linley is thus noticed, and as if exclusively his. —

" Henry le Forcer is Lord of the vill and holds under the Prior
of Wenloc and does due suit to the Prior's Court ; and his Ancestors

* Salop Chartulary, Nos. 19, 24> 82.

3 Monasticon, iii, 519, No. 2.

4 Beguter at Willey, to. 6.

* Supra, Vol. I, pp. S59, 860.
6 litotuli Curia Regit, volume ii, page
252.

LINLEY.

used to do suit to the Hundred of Munslow till the time of King
Richard."?

As a tenant in capite at Brockton an Inquest was summoned on
the death of this Henry le Forcer. The King's Writ ordering such
Inquest bears date 25th Oct. 1272. As regards Linley, the Jurors
returned little more than that the deceased held half the vill under
the Prior. 8 A second Inquest which sat at Newport on July 6th,
1273, in obedience to a writ of certiorari, is more explicit. It
states that Henry le Forcer had held a messuage and carrucate of
land at Linley under the Prior by Socage, doing homage to the
Prior and owing suit of Court every three weeks : that the whole
Manor was worth £3. 13s. 6d. per annum, less a rent-charge of
9*. due annually to the heirs of Philip de Farlowe : and that the
Liberty of St Milburg was such as that the Prior had no right of
wardship or marriage over the heirs of those his men who held by
homage." 9

Henry le Forcer left a widow, Burga, and a son, William, who
(having been born Sept. 29, 1256) was under age at his Father's
death, and was claimed as a ward of the Crown. That claim how-
ever was unfounded, for a reason which will be given under
Brockton.

This William would seem to have been chiefly resident in
Shropshire, though he inherited from his Father the Manor
of Elstow (Leicestershire), 10 — a more extensive property than
Linley.

Being also a Tenant of Salop Abbey (as I have shown under
Nordley), William le Forcer attests two deeds of that House dated
respectively May 25, 1298, and March 29, 1303. 11

About 1310, and being then a Knight, he attests two deeds
which will be given under Tong and Donington.

On Nov. 5, 1313, Sir William le Forcer appears as purchaser of
lands at Dudmaston, and again on 9 June, 1326. 12

7 Hot. Hund. ii, 84, 85.

8 Inquisition*, 56 Hen. Ill, No. 28.
• Ibidem, 1 Edw. I, No. 47.

10 Elstow (generally written Ayleston)
was held under the Harcoorts by a curious
tenure. The Tenant was to accompany
his Lord whenever the latter had to serve
in the Welsh wars. He was to remain
with his Lord forty days at his own cost,
and serve him in the capacity of Steward

II,

of the Table (Pannetarins) and Butler,
during the whole period. Ayleston and
Tong passed from Harcourt to Pembruge,
a circumstance which will explain the
attestation of Sir William le Forcer to
certain deeds which shall be cited under
Tong and Donnington/

11 Supra, Vol. I, p. 50.

19 Charters at Dudmaston.

UNLET.

Meanwhile, that is in March 1316, it is he who should appear
as Lord of Linley on the Nomina Villarum Roll of that date. 18

Lastly, in May 1324, the Sheriff returned him as erne of twenty-
two Knights of the County who were to attend a great Council
then under summons to Westminster. 14

A fine was levied in 1330 "between Thomas le Forcer and
Maud his wife Complainants, and John le Botiller Defendant, of
the Manor of Linley, to the use of Thomas and Maud in taile." u

This transaction will indicate the previous death of Sir William
le Forcer and the succession of Thomas his heir.

LINLEY CHAPEL.

This foundation would appear to have belonged to a class not
very numerous in early times. It was I suppose a private Chapel
attached to the residence of the Lords of Linley. Situated within
the Parish of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock, it was without parochial
cure, nor can I find that it had any permanent endowment, 10 or
that its Incumbents were presented to the Bishops of Hereford for
Institution. Neither does it appear to have been liable to any
such charge or pension as was usually reserved by the Mother
Church of any district, as a condition of these minor foundations.

In the absence of all early notice of a Chapel existing here,
we find some architectural remains which attest a high degree
of antiquity. Its Founder was doubtless one of those Lords of
Linley who have been already spoken of as holding the yet un~
severed Manor down to the close of the twelfth century.

The Wenlock Jurors at the Assizes of October 1203, reported
of a Bobber who after commission of his crime took sanctuary in
the Church of Linley. 17 From that period till the year 1535, when
the Chapel appears as united to Broseley, 18 no mention of its exist-
ence has occurred to my notice.

» Parliamentary Writs, vol iv,p. 397,
where the printed eopy gives, with its
usual inaccuracy, William Luffard as
Lord.

" Ibidem, vol. iii, p. 64&

» Duke it Antiquities, p. 264.

M By a settlement of the endowment
of Wenlock Vicarage in 1273, it appears
that all the tithes of Linley were assigned
by the Priory to the Incumbent of the

Mother -Church, except two merks which
belonged to the Kitchen of the Priory,
and except the tithes of demesne. (Charter
at Willey). It does not however appear
whether the Priory reserved these de-
mesne tithes itself or whether they were
the endowment of the Chaplain of Lmley

v Salop Am*68, 5 John, memb. 2.

18 Supra, p. 34.

DOOR WAY. SOUTH SIDE, UN1.EY.

FONT, UN LEY.

Caugftlep*

This place demands a separate notice on much the same grounds
as Linley, viz. as a distinct Tenure under the Priory of Wenlock,
yet without any Domesday type, and without any symptom of its
having been involved in Wenlock or any other Domesday Manor.
The somewhat disjointed notices which seem to relate to it are as
follows. —

At the Assizes of November 1221, it was found that Ralph
de Sandford (who had lands in Brockton) had unjustly disseized
Walter Faber and Agnes his wife of their free tenement in
Cacheleg. 1

On the death of Richard de Sanford (son of this Ralph) about
1249, it appeared that the deceased had been in receipt of a rent of
8*. payable by Ralph de Kacheleg on land in Kacheleg.*

At the Inquisition of 1255, Ralph de Kacheleg was on the Jury
for Wenlock Liberty. He was returned as holding a carucate of
land in the trill of Kakeleg for which he paid a rent of 40*. per
annum to the Prior of Wenlock and did suit to the Prior's Court
by qffbrciament; and his Ancestors had done suit to the Hundred of
Munslow till the time of Richard I. 8

On the 16th of September 1289, a writ of King Edward I
enjoins the Sheriff of Salop to summon a Jury, which should
ascertain the circumstances under which the Manor of Cackeleg
was held, and whether it would be to the King's damage if he
allowed Nicholas Brisebon of Montgomery to grant the said Manor
to the Prior of Wenlock, to have and to hold for ever ? The Jury
met at Wenlock on Oct. 23 following, and reported that the pro-
posed conveyance would not injure the Crown ; — that the Manor
was held of the Priory already, by service of 9*. per annum. That
its full value (to the Tenant) was 13*, 4d. per annum, and its
contents were a carucate of land.*

1 JjrisM, 6 Hen. Ill, m. 2.
Imqm*, inoerti temporis Henrioi HI,
No. 111.

' Sot Hmnd. ii, 84, 86.

« Inquisition*, 17 Edw. I, No. 77. The

Royal Patent allowing the proposed sur-
render to Wenlock bean date June 80,
1290 (Pat. 18 Edw. I, m. 21). It pro-
Tides that the villain* on the Manor shall
remain in their existing state.

CAUGHLEY.

Without attempting to account for this apparent change of
value since 1255, I will here only say that this Nicholas Brisebon
had two sons, Roger and Hugh, each holding lands in Brockton
(near Sutton), and that Roger Brisebon both before and after
the date of this Inquest (1289) was engaged in many transactions
with Wombridge Priory, to which house he seems finally to have
conveyed most of his said property in Brockton. 6

In 1291, among the Temporalities of the Priory of Wenlock was
a carucate of land at Caughley, apparently held in demesne, and
the annual value of which is laid at 12$, This was doubtless the
carucate recently redeemed from Nicholas Brisebon ; but besides
this, the Prior was in receipt of 20*. rent in Caughley, evidently
chargeable on other land. 8

On the 12th of May 1296, another Inquest of the kind called
" ad quod damnum " was ordered in relation to this Manor. The
Jury in this case was to report as to a grant which Philip de
Caughleye and Margery de Prestehope proposed to make to Wenlock
Priory of a messuage, four virgates of land, and ten acres of wood
in Caughleye. The Jurors again gave a verdict in favour of the
grant ; and added that the land was already in the Prior's Liberty
and held of him by service of 40*. rent and two suits per annum
at the Prior's Court at Burton, — that the annual value of the
premises was 10*. more than the services, — that Philip had never
been liable to serve on Juries in regard to his tenure at Caughleye,
but that he held a messuage and half-virgate at Shineton which
would oblige him so to serve. 7

A valuation of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, taken Sept. 6,
1379, explains part of the apparent inconsistencies of the above
extracts. The Monks had then two carrucates at Caugheleye,
the result I presume of the two transactions of 1289 and 1296,
but the whole was valued only at 6*. 8rf. per annum. 8

As regards the family which took its name from this place, and
of which the above-mentioned Philip was probably the last, a few
notices should be added. We have seen Richard de Kayleg
attesting a Broseley deed about 1230, and Ralph de Kayleg

4 Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broc-
ton, passim.
6 Register at Willey, fo. 7. A better

copy of Pope Nicholas Taxation than is
supplied on page 164 of 'the printed Re-
cord, where this place ia,_Bpelt Caleuve.

7 Inquisitions, 24 Edward I, No. 83.
The Patent by which the King allowed
the proposed grant did not issue till
March 27, 1299 (Pat, 27 Edw. I, memb.
83).

8 Monatticony ▼, p. 78, No. 8.

WILLEY. 45

attesting later in the century. Besides his occurrence in 1249 and
1255, this Ralph de Kauchelea appears in September 1258, as
negotiating a twelve years 7 lease of lands in Astley Abbots under
Sibil daughter of Henry Fitz Tyrric. 9

In February 1262, he appears as Ralph de Cauweleg and as a
Regarder of the King's Forest. For some neglect in that office he
was amerced. 10

The last that I find of him is his complaint in Nov. 1274, against
William de Caverswell, who while Sheriff (1268-9) had received
a fine of 2s. 7d. from this Ralph, for not producing one for whom
he was Surety. The said Sheriff had given the complainant no
acquittance, so that he had been again charged with the debt. 11

Philip de Caughley, apparently successor of Ralph, has already
been spoken of.

W&\\\V£.

This Manor was, in 1086, a member of the Fief held by Turold
under the Norman Earl, and is thus noticed in Domesday. — " The
same Turold holds Wilit, and Hunnit (holds it) of him. This same
(Hunnit) held it (in time of King Edward) and was free. Here is
half a hide geldable. There is arable laud sufficient for n ox-
teams. Here those ox-teams are, together with n villains and n
boors. Its value was, and is, v shillings." 1

This mode of writing the place (" Wilit") is probably the result
of a scribal inaccuracy, and no safe guide as regards its etymology.

The true Saxon name is more likely to be represented by the
usual and very old forms of Wililey or Wilileg. The probable
constituents of that name are pili3, a willow (whence pihe, a
basket), and lea}, a district.

* Salop Ghartulaiy, No. 152 b. A cu- . his previous outlay.

rious condition is attached to this lease.
If the Lessor should take to herself a hus-
band within the term, she was to satisfy
the Lessee for the residue of the term and J

10 JPlaciia Forest*, 46 Hen. Ill, Salop.

11 Rot. Eund. ii, 111. The name is
printed "Bad de Taweleg."

1 Domesday, fo. 258, a 1.

WILLET.

Turold, the Domesday Lord of Willejr, held thirteen Manors
under the Norman Earl. Among them were Longford, Chetwynd,
Draitnne (Little-Drayton in Hales), Pichford, and Wigwig. He
also held Etone (Little Eton, near Pichford, a vill now destroyed)
of the Collegiate Church of St. Chad, Shrewsbury. 9

This Turold has been represented as a Saxon, and I suppose on
very insufficient grounds. 8 The name does not belong to the
Saxon language, and if not originally Norman or Angevin, it

9 Domesday, fo. 268, a 1.

9 There is perhaps no subject on which
Mr. Blakeway, the greatest of Shropshire
Antiquaries, has left less valuable com-
ments than this of Turold, his origin, his
descent, and his connection with Toret.
I cannot pretend to a single item of docu-
mentary information which did not reach
Mr. Blakeway, and can only attribute our
differences to his having lent only a
cursory attention to the matter. Parts
of the subject may more properly belong
to a future section of this Work ; but it
can hardly be divided, and the earliest is
perhaps also the best opportunity to deal
with a question which has been mis-
apprehended by any great authority.

Mr. Blakeway tells us substantively
(History of Shrewsbury, ii, p. 25) that
Turold and Toret, who appear in the
Shropshire Domesday, and Tetbald, whose
Son Robert occurs as a Feoffee in that
fiecord, were one person. Domesday gives
no hint whatever of such identity, and
writes the three names with every appa-
rent observance of their orthographical
distinction. If Turold and Tetbald were
identical, then we have a Father and Son
contemporary and considerable Tenants
of the Norman Earl, — a circumstance of
great inherent improbability.

Mr. Blakeway also says that the Drai-
tnne held by Turold in Domesday was
" Little Drayton, now called Decker-hill,
in the Parish of Shifhal." The fact how-
ever is, that Turold's Manor of Drayton
was in Odenet Hundred, which did not
approach Iteshale (the Domesday ShuT-
nal) in any direction, whilst the Little
Drayton, which was a member of Iteshale,

then and afterwards, belonged as such
not to Turold, but to Bobert Fits Tetbald.

But even adopting for a moment Mr.
Blakeway's ideas that the Draitune, which
Turold granted to Salop Abbey in time
of Henry I, was Drayton near Shifinal, and
that Bobert Fits Tetbald was identical
with Bobert Fits Turold, we at once find
ourselves beset with anomalies, vis. the
Son possessed of the Capital Manor (Ites-
hale), while the Father had only the mem-
ber (Draitune) ; the Father granting in a
generation after his son's advancement;
to say nothing of the Abbey being
supposed to receive lands in a quarter .
where they retained no such property,
rather than in a quarter where they were
afterwards largely interested.

Mr. Blakeway further says, that Turold
was a Saxon, that he held thirteen Manors
in Domesday t "in which he is sometimes
called Turold, and at others Toret' 1
However in the thirteen Manors alluded
to, and even in a fourteenth, Turold is
uniformly so written j but if Toret were
the same person, then there is mention of
Toret in four other Domesday Manors, so
that their aggregate tenure was eighteen
rather than thirteen Manors.

A note by the same Authority also say*,
that Toret "though favoured by the Nor-
mans, was removed from all the estates
which he held in time of the Confessor."
This again is untrue as regards at least
half of Toret' 6 Saxon Manors.

It is a wonder that Toreth's attestation
of Bobert Fits Turold's Charter to Salop
Abbey, did not dissipate this mistake as
to his identity with Turold ; but the error
is substantively repeated in the " Sheriffs

WILLET.

occurs in Normandy before the Conquest, and was borne by several
who profited by the Norman invasion of England,

With regard to the thirteen Manors held by Turold of the Nor-
man Earl, an usual but not quite uniform rule of succession is
observable. The general rule is that whatever Turold thus held in
1086, was afterwards held by Turold's heirs or successors, not
immediately of the Crown, as might have been expected, but as an
appendage of the Barony of Fits Alan.

The exceptions to this rule are Longford, Little Drayton, and
Wigwig.

The first of these (Longford) continued indeed a tenure m capite,
that is, was never subjected to the seigneury of Fits Alan; but its
Tenants were no longer Turold or his heirs, for Henry I bestowed it
in another line of succession. This loss of his principal Manor, as
well as the degradation of his Fief in the scale of feudal tenures, are
circumstances, which I doubt not were associated with some sym-
pathy or partisanship exhibited by Turold in the cause of Earl
Robert de Belesme.

Turold evidently survived the fail of his Suzerain, and apparently
escaped any more summary forfeiture than that already indicated.

It was during the period when King Henry I was holding this
County in demesne, 4 that under the name of Torald de Yerleio
(another evidence of his Norman extraction) * this Turold granted
to Shrewsbury Abbey a hide in Lesser Draiton, or in fact all that
Domesday says he possessed there. 6 The mode in which King
Henry I confirmed this grant, in 1121, would make it probable that
it passed during the Viceroyalty of Richard Bishop of London. 7
The limits of date thus ascertained, viz. 1108-1121, apply
apparently to the further event of Turold's death and the succession
of his son and heir Robert. Certainly before the latter year this
Robert had followed his Father's example by granting to Shrews-
bury Abbey the trill of Wigwig (villain nomine Wichewicam).

of Shropshire" (p. 48), where again the
mention of Toret's Saxon Manor of
Bodington, which he retained in 1086,
might have suggested a revision of the
whole question.

* MonaHicon, iii, p. 619, Nam. 2, " His-
toria Fundationis."

* Verkium is obviously the name of
some French Town Latinised according
to a mode very usual with Norman

writers, e.g. Ivry, Pacy, Greasy, Ac., are
usually written Ibrehim, Paoeium, and
Cresseium. The name Verlay which
would thus become Verleium, is on the
Boll of Battle Abbey, a further proof of
the Norman origin of its bearer.

• Domeaday, fo. 268, a. 1. It is
Drayton Parra, a township now unrobed
in Market Drayton.

7 Salop Chartadary, No. 86.

WILLEY.

There were witnesses of this, besides the said Bishop, Hamo Peverel,
John son of Grip, and Toreth. 8

Of Turold and his son Robert, I learn nothing further or with
certainty. 9 — In eleven of the fourteen Manors which Turold held
in 1086, I shall hereafter show that a family, which took name
from Chetwynd the chief of those residuary Manors, inherited
or obtained Turold' s interest. This uniformity of succession in so
many Manors indicates I doubt not an inheritance by blood ; but
I can establish no particular of generic descent from Robert son
of Turold de Verley, who lived in the beginning of the twelfth
Century, to Adam de Chetwynd who occurs towards its close.

The general rule of territorial succession, now alleged, remains
however to be established by particulars. Of the eleven Manors in
which we are to show De Chetwynd as the successor of Turold,
there is no case in which all evidence on the point might more
easily have been lost than that of Willey. Tt was one of the
Manors which were absorbed into the Liberty of Wenlock in time
of Richard I ; and thus all trace of its original Tenure might well
have vanished ; in fact the usual statement about Willey and other
Manors so transferred was that they were thenceforward held of
the Prior of Wenlock. Nevertheless it can be shown by a single
and fortuitous notice, presently to be cited, that Willey followed
the ordinary descent of Turold's Manors, and that in the thirteenth
Century it was, in some sort, held of the Fee of Chetwynd, and
by Chetwynd under Fitz Alan.

We must now speak of Hunnit who was a Saxon, and who having
held Willey before the Conquest was permitted to retain it under
a Norman Lord, and so had it in 1086. This continuous Saxon
interest in the Manor was probably the cause of its non-diminution
of value since the time of Edward the Confessor, as well of its being
cultivated to its full capability when the Domesday Commissioners
took their account of it.

Hunnit and his Brother Uluiet had in Saxon times held other

8 Salop Chartulary, No. 35.

9 That Charter of Shrewsbury Abbey
which has just been quoted as the " His-
toria Fundationis," is a statement of the
possessions of that house, drawn up
apparently in the beginning of Stephen's
reign; for it recites that King's Con-
firmation, which must have passed about
1136, but does not notice the Charter of

the Empress Maud, which will have
followed in 1141. This "History,"
speaking of Robert son of Turold adds,
" qui et heeres ipsius est," as if he were
then living.

The Feodary of 1165 contains, under
Fitz Alan's Barony, no name and tenure
which 1 can suggest as likely to represent
the " Fee of Chetwynd."

WILLKY. 49

Shropshire Manors besides Willey. In two of these, viz. Moreton
and Preston, Hunnit was still Tnrold's tenant in 1086. In a
third, Lawley, he also held under Turold, but the Saxon owner of
that Manor is not particularized in Domesday, though probably it
was he. The usual Norman policy, when a Saxon was allowed to
retain any land at all, was to assign it elsewhere than in those
localities where its possession would be accompanied by the influ-
ence of old associations. 10 This policy had not as yet been adopted,
in 1086, against Hunnit; but there is strong presumption that
eventually he was thus dealt with. Toret, another Saxon, and
Hunnit's contemporary, had held six Shropshire Manors in the time
of King Edward. "Three of these he retained in 1086, and perhaps
had some interest in a fourth. His total loss of other two seems
to have been compensated by his feoffment in a seventh Manor,
where he had held nothing previously.

Toret was succeeded, by at least two generations in the male
line. His estates then passed with a female to Corbet of Wattles-
borough; but the extraordinary feature of this succession is, that
whatever can be traced to have so passed to Toret's heirs was not
Toret's at Domesday, but rather Hunnit's and Uluiefs. Consistently
with this fact we observe that Toret, having held nothing under
Turold at Domesday, wis yet a witness of Robert Fitz Turold's Charter
to Shrewsbury Abbey before 1121. We naturally infer that before
the same period, Toret had succeeded Hunnit or Uluiet, or both,
in certain tenures under Turold or his Son ; Willey however was not
of the number, and that Manor is no further involved in this ques-
tion than that if, according to a recognized policy, Hunnit lost his
interest in several of his Domesday Manors, he probably lost it
in all.

- Willey then, not passing from Hunnit or his heirs to Toret or
his heirs, nor yet remaining in any succession of Hunnit, would
seem to have been transferred to a new Feoffee, the Ancestor of a
family which took name from the place. And this same family
inherited other estates, held of the " Fee of Chetwynd," and with
which neither Hunnit nor Toret had ever been concerned. Hence
I conclude that the family of Wililey acquired its feoffments in the
" Fee of Chetwynd," not by any right of inheritance, but solely by
favour of the Chief Lord.

* See Sheriff* of Shropshire, p. 48,
where this policy is alluded to, though its
application to the case in question is

II.

mis-stated. See also History of Shrews*
fairy, ii, p. 25, n. 1.

WILLET.

That which I have farther to say of Willey will best be intro-
duced by a Pedigree, and some account of the successive members
of the family which took its name from this acquisition of the
Manor. —

Among the Laymen who were Assessors to the Viceroy of the
County when, about a. d. 1115, he presided over the great Archi-
diaoonal Chapter, already mentioned 11 as having been held at Castle '
Holgate, was one, evidently of rank, but who, according to a
common usage at the time, is described only by his Christian
name, —

Warnerius. Him I am inclined to take for the Ancestor of the
family of Wililey, though on the slight evidence of name and
position. The name Warner was uncommon at the period and by no
means identical with Warin. The distinction between the two,
though afterwards forgotten, was in the twelfth century carefully
observed ; indeed it is so observed in the very document which I am
quoting. Neither name was Saxon, and I have found that of
Warner used by no contemporary family of distinction, and likely
to have been represented at Castle Holgate on this occasion, except
that of De Wililey. 18

If this Warner were indeed Lord of Willey, he will have survived
the only occasion on which he occurs but for a short time.

A very curious deed, dated a.d. 1120, by which Peter, Prior of
Wenlook, grants certain rights in Beckbury to Walter Fitz Warm,
is attested inter alios by Hugh de Welileia, Turold, and Warner de
Becheberi. 13

Besides this recurrent distinction between the names of Warner
and Warin, it is singular that Hugh de Welileia, whom I take to
have been surely Lord of Willey, and then Feoffee of Robert Fitz
Turold, should be followed in his attestation by one named
Turold. u By no means identifying the latter with Turold de
Verley,who, if living, would have preceded his Tenant in «ny testing-

" VoL I, pp. 217, 228.

M There -was indeed a contemporary
Warner de Beckbury, as we shall presently
see, but he was not Lord of Beckbury,
nor does he appear under any such cir-
cumstance as would tally with the pre-
sumptively high position of an Assessor
to the Viceroy. .

" Begister of Wenlock Priory (at Wil-
ey), fo. 6.

14 A very ancient Charter of Buftdwas
Abbey (in possession of George Pritohard,
Esq. of Broseley), which passed within
twenty years of this period (1120), is
tested, inter alios, by " Thurold de Main-
He may be the Turold who at-

mo.

tested in 1120, but I can say nothing
more of the person indicated under either
denomination.

WILLEY.

PEDIGBEE OF DE WILILEY.

Warnerius.
Occurs circa 1115.

Hugo do Wflileia.
Occurs 1120.

Juliana de
Kenley.
Granted in
Bnshbury.

9j&.

Warner de
WilOeia.
Occurs 1180.
Living 1226.
DtfwncUslZZl.

=F Petronilla Fitx-Odo.
Supertte*
1240.

Nicholas de
Wihleg.
Occurs 1281,
1241.
Defs. 1255.

=pBurga (daughter of
Ralph dePichford.)
Superstes
1269.

Andrew Fits Nicholas. =
Married amU 1250.
Infra cdaiem 1256.
PUna eeiatis 1262.
Oooimu apmd Evesham 1265.

* • * daughter of
Walter de HugfordL

Married before December, 1283.
ObiU 1316.

1st husband, Philip = Burga, sole daughter=p2d husband, Richard de Harley.

son of William de

Stapleton.

Occurs 1277, 1278.

Defimctut 1283.

and hair.
8uper*te$ 1337.

Henry de Maleolumb de Philip de

Harley. Harley, Lord Harley, Reo-

Occurs of Bold 1316. torofWilley,

132a &c. 1323.

Robert de
Harley. Mar-
ried 1296.
Lord of Har-
ley, &c. 1316.

=f= Margaret, daughter and
coheir of Brian de

Brompton.

Born circa 1287-8.

Married 1296.

WILLEY.

clause, we may associate the name with some conjectural relation-
ship of these cousecutive witnesses and the Lord under whom at
least one of them held.

Passing over the next sixty years, no extraordinary hiatus in the
manorial or genealogical details of the twelfth century, we arrive at
the year 1180, when : —

Warner db Williley, son perhaps or grandson of Hugh, was
undoubtedly Lord of Willey. With him all obscurity of descent
at once vanishes. In that year he was assessed by the Justices of
the Forest, at 2 shillings, for some charge within their jurisdiction,
and probably arising from the proximity of Willey to the Royal
Hay e of Shirlot. 16

About the same time, for I cannot assign any more probable date
to the transaction now to be mentioned, Warner de Wilile stands
at the head of the nine witnesses who seem to have been present
on behalf of Wenlock Priory when Gervase Paganel " offered on
the Altar of St. Mylburg," the Charter by which he endowed the
subject Priory of Dudley and ratified its dependence on the Shrop-
shire House. 16 Within nine years of his first appearance, i.e.
before the year 1199, Warner de Wililey contracted a marriage
which, realizing an immediate and considerable addition to his
property, brought, in consequence of the eventual heirship of his
wife, still greater benefits to his posterity.

The period of his marriage and the family and fortune of his
wife will best be indicated by the following Charter : —

u Forest Soils at Westminster, No. 1,
memb. 2.

10 Monastics v, 84, No. 2. This
deed apparently oontains a double testing-
clause. The first consists of the Baron of
Dudley's Retainers, the last of persons
appearing in other Charters in the Court
of the Prior of Wenlock.

The date which I assign to the Charter
should be accounted for. Pope Lucius
III confirmed Gervase Paganel's Foun-
dation in its chief particulars on
June 16, 1182, as we learn from another
Charter (Ibidem, p. 83, No. 1). Also
out of the eight witnesses who, be-
sides Warner de Wilile, attest on the
part of Wenlock Priory, six are found to
attest a feoffment by Prior Robert, who
succeeded about 1176.

In thus confidently stating the date of
Pope Lucius' Bull I should add that it
is itself dated on the 16th of the Calends
of July, in the year of the Incarnation
1190, the 15th year of the Indiction, and
the first year of the Grantor's Pontificate."
This clause, however inconsistent, esta-
blishes the date which I have given above,
viz. June 16, 1182, though the Editors of
the Monasticon have been satisfied with
1190, which was the eighth year of the
Indiction and the fifth after the death of
Pope Lucius. I have before remarked on
the preference which in these dating
olauses should be given to anything rather
than the dominical year (Tol. I, p. 250).
In the present instance the Indictional
and Papal year being consistent, point
conclusively to l. d. 1182.

WILLEY.

"William, son of William Fitz- Alan, certifies that he has conceded
to Warner de Wilileia, together with Petronilla daughter of Roger
Pitz Odo, 17 and to their heirs, the donation, which Thomas Fitz
Odo made to them, of Keneleia (Kenley), and one hide in Gro-
tintan (Gretton) with the Mill, in frank marriage, as (the said
donation) was made at Salop, in full County, and in his (Fitz
Alan's) presence. — Witnesses: Hugh Pantulf, Sheriff, Robert
Corbet, William de Wudeton, Robert de Giroe, Richard de Costen-
tin, Adam Salvage, Peter Fitz Toret, Master Walter de Dunstanvill,
Master Adam de Bromfeld, and many others, both Knights and
Gentlemen (Liberia hominibus)." 18

The Shrievalty of Hugh Pantulf alone determines this deed to
have passed in the County-Court between Michaelmas 1179 and
Michaelmas 1189.

The estate thus settled upon Warner de Wililey and Petronilla
his wife was further assured to them by a fine levied at West-
minster in June 1194. The Record gives this very early fine as
follows. —

Thomas Fitz Odo and Roger his Brother, Tenants, and Warner
de Wilileia and Petronilla his wife, wqre accorded concerning the
land of Keinleia with its appurtenances and concerning 1 hide of
land in Grotington and the Mill, so as that the whole land and
Mill shall remain to Warner and Petronilla for ever; for 2 merks
which the same Warner gave them. 19

9 It is a most extraordinary circum-
stance that this Petronilla, wife of Warner
de Wililey, is stated in an equally
authentic document (a fine of 6 Hen. Ill)
to hare been daughter and heir of Her-
bert de Rushbury. The latter was doubt-
less of the fiunily of Fitz Odo, but that
does not clear the difficulty. I willingly
postpone a solution of so perplexing a
matter.

18 The original of this Charter is not
known to be in existence. The copy from
which I make extract is in Vol. xxxix of
Dugdale's MSS. in the Ashmolean li-
brary, Oxford. It is accompanied by
transcripts of other Charters and Evi-
dences, described by Dugdals as having in
1583 been in possession of Rowland
Lsoon, Esq. of Willey. Of course Bug-
dale copied them in the following century,

but in whose custody the originals then
were he does not say. Their presumed
loss is all but compensated by the un-
rivalled excellence of Dugdale's tran-
scripts; for the King of Heralds and
Antiquaries condescended to write legibly
and to copy fully and carefully. Such
are the documents which I shall quote,
after this explanation, simply as " Lacon
Evidences."

19 Placita apud Wutm. t entitled as
" inoerti temporis Regis Rioardi," memb.
2 dorso. Some extracts from this Roll
are printed in the Abbreviatio JPlacitorum
(pp. 96, 97) and ascribed to " an un-
certain period of King John's reign."
The internal and other evidence (part of
which is implied above) proves the Roll
to have been of Trinity Term, 5 Richard I
(1194). It is one of those which owing

54 WILLEY.

The sam ibt» paid by Warner, as well as the feet that Thomas
and Roger Fits Odo are described as Tenants in the preamble of
this fine, would induce a supposition that the grant implied by Fits
Alan's Charter had not been, in the first instance, fully conveyed,
nor without some litigation. Notwithstanding this fine of June
1194, the supposed dispute was renewed in November of the same
year and again settled by Warner's allegation of the previous
concord.

In subsequent years there were other law proceedings affecting
the details rather than the principle of the original grant ; but
these particulars belong rather to Kenley where I propose to give
them. It is sufficient here to say that Warner de Wililey again in
1204, alleged the fine of Trinity Term 5 Rich. I, and again
obtained judgment in a suit then pending.

To return to the reign of Richard I. I have already alluded to
a composition which about the year 1196 passed between the
Dean of Brug and the Prior of Wenlock ; Warner de Wililey was
a witness, and doubtless on the part of the Prior. 90

His marriage, above mentioned, involved a considerable tenure
under the house of Fitz Alan. William Fitz Alan II, was at this
period Sheriff of Shropshire, and from Michaelmas 1 198 to Michael-
mas 1200, Warner de Wililey acted as his Deputy. For the nest
ten years he appears variously interested in the concerns of that
Baron, attesting his Charters or acting as his Attorney. In 1208>
being a Knight, he sat as Juror on several causes of Grand Assize.
In 1219, 1 find him appointed as a Justice to make inquiry con-
cerning assarts and purpre&tores in the Royal Forests of Shrop-
shire. 91 Such being his station and trusts, he appears in 1221 as
convicted of an act of oppression and treachery which even in that
day was marked with some weight of legal animadversion.
Coveting another man's land, and that man his own Vassal, whom
he was bound to protect, he contrived that his Dependant should
appear guilty of a fictitious but capital crime.

By information of Petronilla, Warner's wife, the assumed Felon
was arrested, and his chattels sold by a King's Bailiff. Should he
be finally outlawed his lands must, in course of feudal law, become
forfeit to the Lord of the Fee. However such equity as could

to this uncertainty of date was unfor-
tunately omitted to be printed in toL i.
of the Botmli Curia Regit. (Vide supra,
— Preface, Vol I, p. 6.)

* Supra, VoL I, p. 322. The witness's
name is printed Warin, and very possibly
by error of the transcriber.

" Pai. S Hen. III.

WILL8Y.

not be attained in a load court was forthcoming at tbe hands of
the King's Justices. At the Assizes of November 1221, the whole
case was gone into, the innocence of the accused established, and
Warner de Williley and the King's Bailiff committed to prison.
However a fine of five merks released the greater culprit. — No
crime at that day was without a fiscal equivalent. A criminal who
could pay could not be punished. 23

Thus ended a case, the motives and moral features of which
had been typified in an older story, 23 though here the successful
crime and the monumental retribution are wanting to complete the
parallel.

In 1222, Warner de Wililey appears as Surety for John Fits
Alan in a cause then depending at Westminster.

In 1226, 1 find him acting with the principal men of the County
on an Inquest, which was to decade between the King and the
Baron of Caus as to some questions of feudal right. In the same
year he was himself questioning the title by which Ralph, then
Lord of Pichford, held that Manor. 24

Warner de Wililey had now far forty-six years been a prominent
person in the County. All that I need further to relate of him k
implied in a deed whereby he and his wife Petronilla are said to
have granted to William de Harley and Engelard a Chaplain
(Feoffees in trust), their Manors of Gretton, Wilderhape, Walle
under Heywode, Rushbury, Kenley and Williley, with the Ad-
vowsons of such Churches as were attached thereto. 26

* The circumstances of this cause shall
be given more minutely under Kenley,
where the coveted land lay.

s 1 Kings, chap. xzi.

11 Pichford, be it observed, was like
Willey held under the fee of Turold, i.e.
Chetwynd. The Son of Warner de
Wililey appears subsequently to have
married the daughter of Ralph de Pich-
ford. I infer this from adeed in Glover's
Collection (A. iii, b.)

* I speak with some hesitation about
this deed, of which there seems to have
been two originals, — one seen by Dugdale
among the Lacon Evidences, the other
extracted by Mr. Blakeway from a set of
deeds which he classifies under the title
"Jones." The former had had two Seals,
but Dugdale gives -only the impression of

the second or sinister t via. — Arms * * on
a chief * two cinquefoils *. Mr. Blake-
way describes his deed as sealed with a
fret (the bearing of De Williley). There
are some other differences between the
two oopies, but unimportant, exoept that
Dugdale gives a Bet of witnesses with his
deed whose names are as follows : —

Wm. de Eroalewe, Walter de Beysin,
Will de Hugford, Knights, Walter de
Hopton, Ivo de Clinton, Robert Dod-
ingtan. —

Now I need not point out to any one
conversant with Shropshire genealogies of
the thirteenth century, that this combi-
nation of witnesses existed only at its
dose, and therefore is inconsistent with a
deed which must have passed at its
A transcript of Dugdaie's is

WILLEY.

The Feoffees, by another deed, regranted the premises (or most
of them) to Warner and Petronilla in tail with remainder to the
right heirs of Petronilla. 86

All that I shall here say of this Heiress is that she survived
her husband many years and was living at least as late as 1240.

Nicholas, son and heir of Warner de Wililey, appears first in
1231, as having been amerced for inattention to his duties as a
Regarder of the King's Forests.

In 1233 and 1237, he is mentioned as a Juror of Grand Assize
and a Knight. On the 10th of April 1241, he was serving the
office of Under-Sheriff to John le Strange; 37 and nothing further
can I learn of him except that dying within the next fourteen years,
he left a Widow Burga and a Son Andrew, then an Infant.

Burga would appear to have obtained the wardship of her son
from John de Chetwynd (obviously as seignoral Lord of Willey
and other lands of Andrew's inheritance). Five years before his
Father's death, this young Heir had been married to a daughter of
Walter de Hugford. In 1255, we have the following notice of the
Manor of Willey as recorded by Jurors of the Liberty of Wenlock. —
" Andrew Fitz Nicholas is Lord of the vill of Wilileg, and holds it
of the Prior of Wenlock and does due suit at the Court of the
Prior, and his Ancestors used to do suit to the Hundred of Munslow
till the time of King Richard/' M

This extract is noticeable on two grounds : first, that it makes no
mention of Andrew de Wililey's still continued Minority ; next,
that it asserts the Prior's Seigneury over Willey as that of any
ordinary feudal Lord. —

The truth is, that the Jurisdictional or Hundredal Seigneury,
originally an adjunct of the Palatine Earldom of Shropshire, had
passed by grant of the Crown to Wenlock Priory, so that the
Manor was in some sort held of the Prior ; but at the same time
the ordinary feudal Seigneury, which involved the right of wardship,
relief, and marriage, remained with Chetwynd as the representative

not to be lightly questioned, neither can
I think the deed which he saw to hare
been a forgery.

My own idea is that Dugdale, copying
a number of deeds, inadvertently took a
testing-clause for this one from some,
other document lying before him. His
limited acquaintance with Shropshire

names might prevent his detection of an
inconsistency which would strike a native
Antiquary at once.

* Blakeway MSS. sub signo "Jones."
Dugdale gives no transcript of this.

* Sheriffs of Shropshire, Preface, p. 6,
quoting Salop Chartulary, No*. 26, 406.

" Rot. Mund. ii, 85.

WILLEY.

of Turold .» Thus the minority of Andrew de Williley in 1255
was no concern of the Prior's, and was not alluded to in an Inquest
which related mainly to the Prior's Franchise.
' This will appear still clearer from the following. —

At Salop Assizes, January 1256, Margery de Lacy sued Burga
de Wililegh that she should surrender to said Margery, Andrew,
son and heir of Nicholas de Wililegh, custody of whom Margery
asserted to belong to herself, because Nicholas had held under her
at Rnshbury by half-a-Knight's-fee ; whereas Burga ever since
Nicholas' death kept Andrew from the Plaintiff, who was thereby
damaged to the extent of £10. Burga appeared and called John de
Chetewind to warranty, who also appeared, vouched the said
warranty, and further called to warranty John Fitz Alan (his own
Seigneur). Fitz Alan being present acknowledged the responsi-
bility, but said that, as regarded marriage of this heir, Margery
could claim nothing, because the said heir had, five years before his
father's death, been married by his said father to a daughter of
Walter de Hugford, which Walter was present in Court and in
seizin of the said heir. On this ground Fitz Alan asked the
judgment of the Court in his favour, stating at the same time
that he had other pleas to offer if this were not enough. 80 Here
the case was broken off, apparently for ulterior consideration; but
no result appears on the Bolls.

Andrew de Wililey, when at length he came of age, associated
himself with the malcontent party of that troubled period. His
career was short and tragical. He fell on the field of Evesham on
August 4, 1265, leaving an infant daughter, the inheritress of a
forfeited estate.

This estate, or rather the redemption money which under the
Dictum de Kenilworth must be paid for the same before it could
return to its lineal claimant, was granted by the Crown to Robert
le Strange, a younger son of John third Baron Strange of Nesse
and Cheswardine.

Robert le Strange was one of those who in 1270 accompanied

9 In process of time the service ren-
dered by the Lord of Willey to the Prior
of Wenlock became much extended. On
June 26, 1888, "Sir Robert de Hurley
came to Wenlock and before many wit-
nesses did his homage and fealty to Sir
Guyehard, Prior of Wenlock, and ac-
knowledged himself to hold the Manor

of Williley of the said Lord Prior by
service of carrying the frock of the same
Prior to Parliament, and of doing suit
every three weeks to the Hundred Court
of Burton, and suit also to the two great
Annual Hundred Courts of Burton. (Re-
gister at Willey, fo. 26).
80 Attizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 dorso.

58 WILLKT.

Prince Edward to the Holy Land. From that expedition he
returned, but survived not long. He was dead Sept. 10, 1276, 81
and being in debt to the Crown, Willey, with other estates of which
he was something more than a Trustee, was again seized into the
King's hands. Meanwhile Burga, the heiress of these unredeemed
lands, had married Philip de Stapelton ; and in 1277, King Edward
issued his precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire commanding him to
take extent (valuation) of Willey, and when extended to deliver it
to William de Stapleton, whose son Philip had married the said
heiress; and William de Stapleton was to cultivate and sow it
and render account to the King during the King's pleasure. A
similar precept again issued in 1278, but in behalf of Philip de
Stapleton himself. 82 He however lived not long to discharge this
trust. Before December 1283, Burga, sole daughter and heir of
Andrew de Williley, was wife of Richard de Harley, and to her
posterity by him she transmitted the splendid and at length
disencumbered inheritance. As this lady survived the date of
her second marriage at least fifty-four years, a presumption arises
that Philip de Stapleton had been only the husband of her infancy.

As some later particulars which I have to give of Willey will be
implied in my account of Harley and other Manors, I will here
take leave of this part of the subject. 33

The only under-tenancy which deserves notice in this Manor
was that of Walter le Stalhere, who left two daughters and coheirs.
On June 18, 1245, a fine wes levied at Westminster, whereby Alice,
one of these coheirs, concurred with her husband William MarescaJl
in conveying half a virgate in Wylleleg to Nicholas le Despenser
and Christiana his wife, the other coheir. For this the Grantees
paid five merks. 84

This Nicholas le Despenser was suspected of unlawful interference
with the King's venison. Specifically he was accused of having
taken a stag in Shirlot Forest on Sunday July 6, 1253, but was
not tried till the Forest Assizes of Feb. 1262, when he escaped the
charge by a fine of 6s. 8c/., for payment of which Richard le Yreis
(Irish) of Dawley and Adam Traynel of Willey were his Sureties.

31 Claus 4, Edw. I, numb. 4.

B Original™, i, pp. 27, 80, where the
inaccuracy of one printed entry is cor-
rected by the other.

88 It is singular that two Manors
named Linlcy and Willey should have
been the property of William Mallet of
Girardville, a Norman, and as forfeited to

the Crown, should appear together on
several Bolls of the reigns of John and
Henry III. The entries relating to them
have been printed elsewhere in connexion
with the same adjoining Shropshire
Manors. It may save some confusion to
say that they were in Hertfordshire
" Pedes linium, 39 Hen. Ill, Salop.

WILLEY.

This Nicholas sat as first Juror of Wenlock Liberty at the
Assizes of October 1272, and as second Juror on the Inquest of
that Franchise which was taken in November 1274.

WILLEY CHURCH.

The Advowson of this Church or Chapel was already a matter
of litigation in the beginning of the 13th Century. In Hilary
Term 1214, the Attorney of the Prior of Wenlock had essoign at
Westminster, in a suit of darrein presentment which the Prior was
prosecuting against Warner de Wilileg. 86

Again in Michaelmas Term 1233, and probably on occasion of
another vacancy here, there were several essoigns in a similar suit,
which the same Prior had against Nicholas de Wilileg. 36 The
result of this litigation must be gathered from other documents than
the Plea Rolls.—

In 1291, the Church or Chapel of Wyleleye in the Deanery of
Wenlock was valued at £5. 6s. 8tf. per annum. The Prior of
Wenlock was not the Patron, nor was his receipt of any pension
arising from this Church entered on the Record. 37

The Church however is elsewhere stated to have been chargeable
with a pension of 7s. payable annually on the day of the Transla-
tion of Saint Milburg (May 26) to the Priory Kitchen. 88

An Inquisition of the year 1323-4 found this Church to be
without cure, and that the person whQ should see to the performance
of divine service here was the Vicar of the Holy Trinity of
Wenlock. 89

Hence the district which was taxed to the Ninth in 1341, under
the title of " The Chapel of Welyley," must not be understood as a
distinct Parish, but as that territory (probably coextensive with the
Manor) from which the Rector of Willey drew his endowment.
On this occasion the said district was assessed at 40s. only, the
ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb therein being so much less than the
endowment of the Church because of tempests and murrain, and
because the glebe land, small-tithes and offerings, which went to
swell the endowment, could not be taken into account in estimating
the value of the ninth. 40

* E*9oign$ Hilary Term, 15 John,
memb. 11 doreo.

* Btsoign* Michaelmas Term, 17
Hen. Ill, m. 9 doreo.

"7 Tax. Papa Nich. p. 167.

93 Register at Willey, fo. 33.

» Hereford Register (Blakeway MSS.)

40 Inquis. Nonarum, p. 187.

60 WILLEY.

A valuation of 1379 puts the annual value of the Chapel of
Wilileye at 10 merks (£6. 13s. 4rf.) and states it to belong to the
Presentation of the Prior.* 1

In 1534, John Podmore being Rector of Wylley, his benefice was
put at the old valuation of £5. 6*. 8rf. for glebe and tithes. The
only charge specified thereon was 6d. per annum for Archdeacon's
Synodals. 48

Summarily then, the Church of Willey may be presumed to have
been founded and endowed by the Lords of the Manor. It had no
Parish, being within the Parish of Wenlock, but it was perhaps
chargeable with a pension as an affiliation of Wenlock Church, and
the Vicar of the latter was responsible for its service. The Rectors
of Willey being without cure were probably non-resident. They
were nominated by the Lords of Willey to the Prior of Wenlock
and then presented by the latter to the Bishop of Hereford for
institution. This mediate right of the Prior seems to have been in
acknowledgment of the ancient ecclesiastical jurisdiction of St.
Milburg, though the pension, which doubtless was an original part
of the same reserved right, may have fallen into disuse.

BABLY INCUMBENTS «

June 24, 1276. Custody of this Church was committed to
Adam be Wetenhalb, Acolyte, whom the Official was ordered to
induct.

Oct. 14, 1304. Henry le Forcer, Subdeacon, was admitted
on presentation of Sir Richard de Harley.

Jan. 27, 1323-4, Sir Philip de Harley, Priest, was admitted
on presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock, on the
further presentation or nomination of Dame Burga de Harley,
€t the true Patron."

Aug. 6, 1357. Philip de Harleye was presented by Robert
de Harleye.

March 23, 1357-8. Robert de Shardelowe, Clerk, was insti-
tuted to this " Free Chapel," on presentation of the King, who then
had the alien Priory of Wenlock in his hands, by reason of the
war with France.

March 30, 1359. Adam de Everynoham, late Canon of York,
was instituted, having exchanged preferments with Shardelowe.

« Mouariieon, t, 78, No. viii. I « Blakeway's MSS. in Bibl. Bodl.

« Valor EceUncuticiu, iii, 209. I

BADGER. 61

March 30, 1360. Sir Hugh lb Yonge, late Prebendary of St.
Mary's Salop, was instituted, having exchanged with Everyngham.

Feb. 22, 1383. Sir William Aumeneye, Chaplain, was insti-
tuted on the King's presentation, Wenlock Priory being still in his
hands. On Aumeneye's resignation as Custos — viz. on Aug. 13,
1386, Master William Hertford (or Hereford) was instituted,
his presentation by the King bearing date however on Nov. 26
previous.

Dec. 16, 1387. Thomas Preston, Clerk, was instituted on a
Crown presentation similar to the above. On his resignation, —

Aug. 2, 1391. Sir Robert Derby was instituted on presenta-
tion of the Crown. Being styled Custos of the Free Chapel or
Chantry here, and also Parson of Falley (in Line. Dioc.), he gave
up both preferments for the Custody of the Chantry of Melton in
Wappenham (Line. Dioc.), and on Feb. 25, 1393-4, John
Cayhoho, late Custos of the said Chantry, was instituted here. He
died in 1410.

We now proceed to those constituents of the Domesday Hundred
of Alnodestreu which went to form, probably in the time of Henry I,
the newly created Hundred of Brimstree.

One of these Manors was, within a century, again transferred to
the Liberty of Wenlock ; and it will properly head this series, as
thus following Broseley and Willey, which were similarly separated
from their second Hundred of Munslow. This Manor was —

Batijjer.

It is noticed in Domesday thus, —

" Osbern holds of Earl Roger Beghesovre and Robert (holds it)
of him. Bruniht held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free
man. Here is half a hide geldable. There is arable land (suffi-
cient) for ii ox-teams. In demesne is i ox-team, and (there are)
in boors with i ox-team. There is a wood which will fatten thirty
swine. Its value (in time of King Edward) was 7s. now it is 10*." 1

Dugdale remarks that all towns compounded of Over " do stand
upon hilly ground, Cher importing as much as supra. 1

1 Domesday, fo. 557, b. 2.

62 BADGER.

The word however, which enters into many names (and indeed the
very name of which Dugdale was treating, viz. Browns-over)! is more
probably the Saxon noun-substantive Opep (a bank, brink, or
shore), than the similarly written preposition, which is equivalent
to the modern over.

The variety of ways in which Badger was written in early times
renders its further etymology a matter of some uncertainty. There
are two Anglo-Saxon words which have, or may have had, an equal
applicability to local circumstances. Beccef , the possessive case of
Becc (a brook), would render the whole name intelligible as "the
bank of the brook," while Becep, the possessive case of Bece (a
beech-tree) affords an equally apparent meaning and is perhaps the
more genuine Anglo-Saxon word of the two.

Osbern, who held the neighbouring Manors of Badger, Brockton,
and By ton, under Earl Roger, in 1085, was no other than Osbern
Fitz Richard, Baron of Burford and Richard's Castle, whom we
have already seen attesting the Earl's foundation of Quatford
Church very shortly after Domesday*

It will be better to speak of him and his house when we come
to treat of his greater Domesday Fief, viz. that which he then held
immediately of the Crown. His Manors in Alnodestreu Hundred
will indeed have some time been annexed to his Tenure in capite ;
but I find no hint of his successors retaining any such concern in
Brockton or Ryton, as might be taken to represent his Domesday
interests there.

With Badger however it was otherwise, for the Inquisitions
which, down to the time of Richard II, detail the possessions of
the successive heirs of Osbern Fitz Richard's Barony, imply their
continuous claim upon this Manor, though such claim probably
amounted to nothing more than the payment of a small quit- rent.
It is singular that except by these Inquisitions and the evidence of
one or two private deeds, we should not have been able to identify
Earl Roger's Tenant Osbern, with the powerful Baron whose name
occupies other folios of the Domesday Record.

Of Robert, Sub Tenant here, in 1086, 1 can say nothing further,
nor whether he left descendants to inherit his interests. However,
about the time of Henry II's accession, it would seem that one
William de Begesour was tenant under Osbern Fitz Hugh, grand-
son of Osbern Fitz Richard above mentioned. The tenancy over

2 Supra, Vol. I, p. 111.

BADGER.

this William, who very possibly may have been son or grandson
of Robert, was granted by the said Osbern to Guy le Strange.

Osbern Fitz Hugh made a return of his Barony in 1165, but it
was sent back to him owing to some informality, and thus its
contents are lost to posterity. Had this return been preserved,
it would probably have contained a statement to the effect that
Guy le Strange held something of new feoffment under the said
Osbern. The loss of the document is in the present instance
harmless, for that mixture of secondary evidence and analogy, which
must often be our guide in these investigations, has enabled us to
indicate the mode in which Guy le Strange and his heirs became
Mesne- Lords of Badger.

Hereby the history of another great family becomes associated
with the place, but I postpone all detailed account of the descent
of Guy le Strange to a future occasion. Some facts necessary
to such fuller account will however be furnished by our present
inquiry.

The nature of the subinfeudation just alluded to is so well made
out by contemporary documents as to merit particular attention.
When Guy le Strange received feoffment here, the reserved rent
payable by him to Osbern Fitz Hugh was probably 4*.

Thenceforward whatever rent and service had been paid by
William de Begesour to the same Osbern became due to Guy le
Strange. Within a short period however this William sold his
subtenancy to one Philip Fitz Stephen who thereupon became Le
Strange'8 tenant. Of William de Begesour we shall hear again,
inasmuch as he probably carried elsewhere and retained the name
which he had derived from his original feoffment.

Philip Fitz Stephen and his Successors, as the actual Tenants-in-
fee of Badger, will now constitute our proper subject, a subject
rendered most clear by a very unusual concurrence of evidences.
The Royal Forestership of Shirlot, a tenure in capite at Ackleton
and Bardeley, Feoffments under the Priory of Wenlock, the Abbey
of Shrewsbury, the families of Le Strange and De Haughton, an
interest in the Borough of Bridgnorth, and (more than all) the
careful preservation of a few early documents, — these are the
circumstances which, while they supply facts and illustrations of

* That is the Bum mentioned as receir*
able from Baggesore in the Inquisition
of 12 Ric. II (1388-9) on the death of

John Talbot of Richards-Castle, (Calend.
Inquis. iii, 106).

BADGER.

much antiquarian value, furnish also that rare curiosity — an ancient
and at the same time an authentic pedigree.

The Grandfather of Philip Pitz Stephen, whose name however
does not appear, held Ackleton, a member of the Royal Manor of
Worfield in time of Henry I.

The father of the said Philip, whose name was of course
Stephen, succeeded to Ackleton in the same reign. Some dis-
turbance of this tenure very possibly took place in the time of the
Usurpation. At all events the following document issued in the
first ten years of the reign of Henry II, and was apparently elicited
by some claim for restitution urged by,—

Philip Fitz Stephen, the heir. The Royal Writ runs thus. —
" Henry King of England and Duke of Normandy and Aquitain
and Earl of Anjou to his Sheriff and Ministers of Salopescire
greeting. I enjoin you that ye cause recognition to be made by
oath of lawful men of the vicinage, as to the kind of service by
which Stephen father of my Forester Philip, and the grandfather
(of the same Philip) held Acclinton, their land, in time of King
Henry my grandfather: and that, when such recognition shall
have been made, ye shall permit him so to hold it and with such
comparative advantage and freedom, both in waters and meadows
and pastures, and by the same service. % And except ye shall so do,
let William de Beauchamp see to the doing hereof. — Witness:
Mannasser Biset, Dapifer ; at Wirecestre." 4

We have seen this Philip Fitz Stephen become (about 1160)
tenant to Salop Abbey, of a fishery or weir at Sutton. We have
also seen him (each year, from 1169 till 1173 inclusive) discharging
the trust of Visor, or Inspector, of the Sheriffs' expenditure on the
works of Brag Castle.

In the year 1174, Guy le Strange being Sheriff and still con-
tinuing an outlay on these works, Philip Fitz Stephen ceases to act

4 Charter in possession of B. H.
Cheney, Esq. of Badger. The date as-
signed above to this early document is
thus arrived at. William de Beauchamp
was obviously the contemporary Sheriff
of Worcestershire, a man much trusted
by Henry II. The King can hardly have
been at Worcester at any time of Beau-
champ's Shrievalty after 1164. Further,
of the numerous attestations of Manasser
Biset (he was Lord of Kidderminster)

none appear later than 1166. Henry was
at Worcester in 1157, and again at Easter
1158, when both Manasser Biset and
William de Beauchamp were with him.
A precept, of very similar character to
this, issued from Bouen to Richard de
Luci, and is tested singly by Manasser
Biset (Bibl. Cott. Claud, b. vi, p. 174).
It certainly passed between 1158 and
1162.

BADGER.

PEDIGREE OF DE BEGGESOVEBE.

• ••* Grandfether of =p
Philip Fits Stephen.
Held Ackleton of
King Henry I (1100-35).

Stephen, Father of Philip. =j=

>hffip Fil

Philip Fitz Stephen.
Occurs circa 1160.
Living 1196.

Reginald de Bagsore.
Occurs Jan. 1196.

Roger de Bagsore.
Occurs ante 1196.
Occurs May 9, 1220.

Lilii

Philip de Bagsore.
A Crusader, 1227-9.

Thomas de Bagsore.
Occurs circa 1226.
Defunctus 1246.

Margery, daughter of
Adam de Beysin.
Nupta circa 1225.
Superttes 1255.

Richard de Bagsore. ;
Occurs circa 1254.
Liring 1284.
Dtflmctus 1292.

Margery,
dau. of * *
SupersUi
1292.

»hilii

Philip de Bagsore. =p
Occurs Mar. 1246.
Defunct**

Deo. 1258.

Vide Ashfield.

Avice de * * * * *

Bagsore. de Bagsore.

Occurs

circa

1254.

: Henry
Mauveysin.
Occurs
circa 1252.

Philip de Bagsore.
Natu* 1247.
Defunctw Oct. 1291
1

Philip de Bagsore, Clerk.
Presentee to Badger Church,
January 1291.

Thomas de Bagsore.
Born Aug. 10, 1278.
Living March 1301.
Defunctus Jan. 1316.

Philip
Mauveysin.
Occurs
1292.

Anabcl, daughter of * * *
Superttes January, 1816.

Philip de Bagsore.
Occurs March 1316
Obiit 1345.

William de Bagsore.
Occurs March 23, 1349
Obiit 1349.

II.

BADGER.

as his Comptroller. This, as I believe, was because at that very
time he became his Tenant, by purchasing William de Begeshoure's
interest at Badger : Guy le Strange (in a deed to which I should on
other grounds assign the date 1173-1177) informs his lieges, French
and English, of the said transfer. He receives the homage of the
new Tenant, and concedes the land of Begeshoure in fee and in-
heritance to Philip Fitz Stephen, reserving to himself only an annual
rent of half a merk.

And Osbern Fitz Hugh under whom Guy le Strange holds must,
according to feudal law, ratify the act of the Mesne-Lord. The
Deed by which he does so is preserved. It informs us of some
further facts, viz. that William de Begesour's Wife and Heir both
concurred in the sale, and that it took place in the County Court
" before Guy le Strange," an expression which I understand to
allude rather to Le Strange's presidency as Sheriff than his
private interest in the transaction. In other respects Osbern Fitz
Hugh's Charter is merely a confirmation of Guy le Strange's
previous act. 5

At Michaelmas 1176, Philip Fitz Stephen appears as owing the

5 These deeds, still at Badger, are pecu-
liarly illustrative of the law and practice
of Subinfeudations, and supply us with
the exact process of a very early Convey-
ance. Their date (c. 1174) being prox-
imately certain, the names which they
contain must make them a subject of
repeated reference in these pages. I
therefore transcribe them in extenso.

Guido Extraneus omnibus hominibus
suis et amicis, Francis et Angiitis, salutes.
Notum sit Tobis Willelmum de Beges-
houre vendidisse terrain suam de Beges-
houre cum omnibus pertinentiis suis Phi-
lippo filio Stcpbani et cui voluerit post
ipsum in feudo et hereditate et coram
Comitatu illam in manu mea reddidisse.
Unde sciatis quod ego predictam terram
supradicto Fhilippo et cui voluerit post
ipsum pro homagio suo dedi et conoessi
in feudo ct hereditate de me et de heredi-
bus meis tenendum; Solam et liberam et
quietam de scuagiis et tailagiis et wardis
et dc omnibus querelis et servitiis ; red-
dendo annuatim dimidiam marcham
argenti ad festivitatem Sancti Michaelis.
Hi sunt testes: Johannes Extraneus,

Hugo Extraneus, Willms de Baucis,
Bogerius filius Grent, Grent films Leyni,
Olfridus filius Henrici, Adam filius Ha-
moms Extraneii (sic), Willms filius Wal-
teri, Simon de Stantune, Johannes frater
Hugonis Extranei, Bogerius de Laven-
dene, Badulfus de Lacheia, Walterus de
Bidun, Distil, Swinudus, Daniel, Bobertus
Oamberlangius, Willms de Petra Ponte,
Willms de Bigedune, Bobertus Carpenta-
rius, Alexander Forestarius. —

The Seal of this Deed is of white wax,
coloured superficially with a red varnish.'
It is very rude and more than two inches
in diameter. It represents a Knight on
horseback ; his right hand (which pro-
bably held a sword, now defaced) is
extended?* On his left arm hangs a tri-
angular shield. The horse is walking.
The Legend is broken off.

Osbern Fitz Hugh's confirmation is as
follows : —

OsbertuB Filius Hugonis, omnibus
hominibus suis et amicis suis Francis et
Anglicis salutem. Sciatis quod ego ven-
dicionem illam quam Willelmus de Be-
gesoura et uxor sua et heres suos fecerunt

BADGER.

King ten merits and a Destrier of Wales, his fine that he might
hold Aclinton a member of Worfield at a fee-farm rent of 60s.
He now paid five merks of the said fine into the Treasury. The
Destrier he had delivered to the King himself. The balance of five
merks he paid in the year following. 6 His object in paying this
fine was probably to get rid of some inconvenient service hitherto
exacted from the King's Tenant at Ackleton.

At Michaelmas 1185, Philip Pitz Stephen having been convicted
of some offence by the justices of the Forest paid 40«. fine " that his
amercement should be settled before the King." 7 I suppose that as
a Crown Tenant and Officer he expected his case to be dealt with
leniently.

About 1196, this Philip, at length called Philip de Beggesour,
attests in a prominent position the composition about Ditton Church
which I have so often alluded to.

The following Fine, illustrative of a very ancient mode of legal
procedure, relates, I doubt not, to a title which this Philip de
Bagesore had to land in an adjoining Manor.

The document runs thus. —

" This is the final concord made in the Court of the Lord King
at Westminster on Thursday next after the Octaves of St. Hilary in
the seventh year of the reign of King Richard (i.e. on Jan. 25, 1196)
before H. Archbishop of Canterbury &c. — Between Ralph de
Herleton, Plaintiff (petentem), and Philip de Bechesore, Tenant, by

Philippo Alio Stephani in Comitata
Salopeesirio de terrA de Baggesoura cam
omnibus pertinenciis siub coram Widone
Extraneo qui terrain illam de mo tenet,
et concessionem et donationem Widonis
Extranet quas fecit predicto Philippo de
eadem terra concedo, et quioquid Carta
Widonis Extranei super his testatur
concedo et carta mea confirmo. His
testibns: Fretherico Capeilano, Begi-
naldo Presbytero, Adame Presbytero
Bogero Clerioo de B (Bagesoura I sup-
pose) Galfrido Clerioo, Philippo de Cure,
Willmo de Muleston, Alexandra de
Puclesdon, Willmo de Wioetre, Badulfo
de Cnulle, Pagano de Heches, Willmo
Garb (Carbonel) de Hesefordia, Hauci
de Stepeltunia, Lofwino filio Lofwini,
Waltero Juveni de Cliffordia, Bicardo
fratre suo, Boberto Wiart, Bicardo des

Bles, Willmo de Logos, Galfrido de Lam,
Philippo de Colington, Osberto de Cure,
WiUmo de Cure, Boberto de Hop,
Benett de Hop, Baulfo le Bluii (Blund)
Samson de Chend, Heliis de Brerlecton,
Stephano de Midelton.— •

Most of these witnesses were Feoffees
of Osbern Fitz Hugh in different counties.
The two Cliffords were brothers of his
wife, brothers also of Fair Rosamond.

The Seal of this Deed is compounded as
the last and is of the same size. It re-
presents a Knight on horseback, charging
at full speed. The Legend is gone.

6 Rot Pip. 22 & 23 Hen. II, Salop.
Montgomeryshire was at this time famous
for its breed of horses. For the causes,
see History of Shrewsbury, i, 64.

7 Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. II.

BADGER.

Beginald his son, put in his place, to gain or lose, — of one hide of
land in Bechesbire (Beckbury), whereof a duel was guaranteed
between the parties, and furnished forth, and actually foughten
(unde duellum fuit invadiatum inter eos, et annatum, et percussum)
— in the aforesaid Court, — to wit, that Philip hath remitted to the
aforesaid Ralph and his heirs half of the aforesaid land, quit of him
(Philip) and his heirs, to hold of the Capital Lord. And Ralph
hath quit-claimed to Philip the other moiety, to hold of the Capital
Lord." 8

This technical language requires some explanation. —Philip de
Bechesore held a hide of land in Beckbury under the Lord of that
Manor. His right to do so was challenged by Ralph de Herleton.
The question was adjudged to be settled by duel. Philip (a very
old man) acted in this phase of the litigation by his (younger) son
Reginald. The duel was fought and probably without any such
decided result as was believed to constitute the " judgment of
heaven" in such matters. So after these solemn appeals to the
law and to Eternal justice, the case was settled by the modern, and
simple, though seldom honest mode of " splitting the difference."

Philip Fitz Stephen of Badger was at this period, as I have
intimated, a very old man, indeed there is evidence of Roger, his
eldest son and heir, having sat in the County Court before the date
of the final-concord just quoted. 9

This Roger de Bechesore, whose succession to his Father Philip
cannot be put much later than 1196, occurs in various relations.
As a Tenant of Salop Abbey at Astley he appears twice in Charters
of that House, which passed during the time of Abbot Hugh
(1190-1218), and related to its affairs in the said Manor. 10 He
stands first witness to a grant which Haughmond Abbey had at
Rudge. 11 As a Knight and accompanied by his heirs he attests a
Charter of Ralph de Sanford which concerned land at Brockton,
and must have passed between 1205 and 1220. 12 To the Abbey of
Lilleshall and the Priory of Wenlock he was himself a Grantor. Of
the former benefaction I can say nothing more than that it is
expressed to be of 5*. annual rent in the Lye (La Lya). 18

8 Pedes Mnium, "quorum Comitatus
ignoratur."

9 He attests with other principal men
of the County an agreement between the
Abbot of Salop and John le Strange
which must have passed before June 1195.
(Salop Chartulary, No. 16).

10 Salop Chartulary, Nos. 137, 150 c.

11 Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 175.

u Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broo-
ton, No. 10.
u Patent, 18 Bioh. II, p. 1, m. 7.

BADGER.

Charter to Wenlock Priory is still in existence. — Calling him-
self Roger son of Philip de Beggeshore, he grants to God and to
St. Mylburg of Weciel and to the Monks there serving God, for
the health of his sonl and the souls of his Ancestors and Suc-
cessors, in pure and perpetual almoigne, 10*. of his Mill of
Beggeshore, for the kitchen of the Brethren, to be paid annually
at two terms, viz. 5*. at the Feast of St. Andrew and other 5*. at
the Feast of St. John Baptist. The deed purports to be sealed with
the grantor's seal and is attested singly by Warin de Burwardell. 14

It is here proper to state that Wenlock Priory must have had
manorial rights at Badger from time immemorial, and that the
Wenlock fee of Badger was originally distinct from the Richards-
Castle fee. Nevertheless, the latter only is mentioned in Domes-
day.

The tenants of the two seem to have.been identical at all recorded
periods. 16

The grant last quoted must have followed immediately on the
period when the Prior of Wenlock was enabled much to strengthen
his Seigneury at Badger; — a consequence of the Manor being
transferred from the Hundred of Brimstree to the Prior's new
Franchise of Wenlock. Thus the subsequent Lords of Badger are
stated indifferently to hold the Manor of the heirs of Le Strange
and of the Prior of Wenlock. And their service to the latter was
much the most onerous of the two, being, I suppose, partly in com-
position of that attendance at the Prior's lesser Hundred Court of
Burton which was exacted, every three weeks, from Manors less
remote.

To return to Roger de Beggeshore. — In the year 1199 (as I
think) the following writ was issued in his favour by Geoffrey Fitz

14 In possession of B. H. Cheney, Esq.
The orthography given for "Wenlock" is
peculiar to this document.

Neither the Valor JScclesiasiicus of
1634, nor the Minuter*' Accounts of 1641,
mention this charge upon Badger-Mill
among the receipts of Wenlock Priory.
Lord Forester's Register has however
(fot. 82, 88) a curious Bent Boll of the
Priory-Kitchen, taken apparently in the
years 1495-6. Under the Title " De Ter-
mino Bti Andres Apostoli," this Boll con-
tains an item — " De redditu molendini de
Bagetor— x soL" So Roger de Bagesor's

benefaction endured nearly three oen-
turies.

u The analogy of Linley and Caughley
has already suggested that the Domesday
Surrey of St, Milburg's Manors was some-
what superficial This will appear more
evidently in regard to Badger, otherwise
I should offer a fuller explanation when
thus assuming any inaccuracy of Domes-
day. Much of St. Milburg's land was not
assessable to Danegeld, and this immunity
may have withheld some Manors, or parts
of Manors, from recognition of the Com-
missioners.

BADGER.

Piers, then Chief Justice of England and acting as Viceroy of King
John, who was absent in Touraine.

" Geoffrey Fitz Peter Earl of Essex to Philip de Gret, greeting.
We enjoin you that without delay you do full right to Roger de
Bagesoure concerning two parts of half a hide of land and an eighth
part of a Mill in Beckebir, which parts he claims to appertain to
his free tenement which he holds of you in the same vill by the free
service of 5 shillings per annum for all services : which parts Hugh
de Beckebir withholds from him. And except you thus do let the
Sheriff of Salopesire see to the doing hereof; and let him no more
have to complain for want of justice. Witness myself at Brug the
26th day of September." lfl

The premises alluded to in this writ were doubtless part of that
half-hide of land which had remained to Soger's Father in 1196.
We now see that the said tenure was under Philip de Grete, a great
Feoffee of the Barons of Richards-Castle. We shall hear again of
this land in Beckbury.

At Michaelmas 1200, Roger de Bachesore appears on the Sheriff's
Roll as having been amerced half a merk by Justices of the Forest,
for faulty custody of his Bailiwick, — the Forestership of Shirlot
I presume, — an office which was hereditary in his family.

At the County Assizes of October 1203, being a Knight, he sat as
a Juror on some causes tried by Grand Assize.

Besides the Custody of Shirlot Forest he held in capite of the
Crown a virgate of land at Bardeley in the Royal Manor of Stottes-
den, for which he paid a rent of six shillings per annum at the Ex-
chequer. As thus holding he is entered among the King's
Tenants by Serjeantry, in a Roll which must have been drawn up
about mi. 1 ?

About this time he obtained the following privilege from his
neighbour Walter de Hugefordj — who "grants his bank of Wrhe
(Worfe) abutting on the Red Weir, whereunto said Roger may
attach his said Weir." The Grantee is to pay a pair of white gloves
yearly on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene for this privilege. 18

16 Charter at Badger. The year, as was
usual in Geoffrey Fitz Piers' writs, is not
mentioned. We can however determine it
to hare passed most probably in 1199,
and almost certainly in 1199 or 1200, by
evidence which is too long to insert.

V Testa de Nevill> fo. 254.

18 Charter at Badger. The witnesses

are Griffin Gohc, Lord of Sutton ; Robert
de Stocton ; Hugo de Bolinghale ; Nicho-
las, his Brother; Nicholas, Chaplain of
Stocton ; Richard, Chaplain of Beche-
beri ; Roger, Clerk of Begesour ; Richard
de Estwelle (Astall) ; and Philip de
Estwellc.

BADGER. 7 1

At Michaelmas 1212, among oblata lately received by the Sheriff,
one of twenty merks from Roger de Bagesoure is recorded, a heavy
fine; but the object of which does not appear. 10

He has already been mentioned as living May 20, 1220, and his
concern in the Royal Forests is apparent in that instance. 20

Within five years of the last date, Roger de Begesoure seems to
have deceased. He left two sons, Thomas and Philip. Thomas
the eldest married (about 1225) Margery daughter of Adam de
Beysin. Also, on succession, he obtained a Charter of Confirma-
tion from the Prior of Wenlock, which illustrates the nature of the
seigneury exercised by the latter over Badger, and shows how in-
dependent it was of the seigneury of Le Strange' s Heirs.

By this deed, already printed, 21 "Brother Humbert Prior of
Weneloch confirms to Thomas de Begelhovere and his heirs the
Ml of Begelhovere, of the Pee of Saint Milburg, with all its appur-
tenancies ; to hold to him and his heirs, of the Prior and his Suc-
cessors, for his homage and for the'same service by which his Father
Roger held it, viz. for 20*. payable annually at Michaelmas, and for
suit to be done to the Court of St. Milburg by afforciament of
Court." The witnesses were, Philip de Burwardel (uncle of the
Grantee's wife), Robert de Wodetun, Hugh de Beckebur, Adam de
Beising (the Grantee's Father-in-law), Hugh de Lega, &c.

Philip, younger brother of this Thomas, seems to have held under
him that land at Beckbury which has already been mentioned twice.
Philip surrendered his tenancy under circumstances of some
interest. — His deed of surrender runs thus : — " Know all men that
I Philip de Beggesoure have rendered and quit-claimed to Thomas
de Beggesoure my brother, his heirs and assigns, all my land in
Bechebiri which I held of him (that namely which Reginald and
William le Sage held under me), — for five merks of silver which the
said Thomas hath given me for my journey to Jerusalem. —
Witnesses : Sir Walter de Huggeford, Walter de Bealmeis, Adam
de Beysin, Roger de Subiri, John de Beckebiri, Walter de Eudinas
(Ewdness), Eudo de Rugge (Rudge), Robert de Alditone, Thomas
de Aclitone (Ackleton), &c. 33

The witnesses' names alone would enable us to determine the
period of this transaction within a few years, but we learn its exact
date in another way. — Philip de Beggesoure was undoubtedly one

w Mot Pip. 14 John, The Fine or Ob-
lata Boll of this year, which probably
would be more circumstantial, is lost.

» Supra, vol. I, p. 299.

21 Monasticon, v, 76, No. yL

s Charter at Badger.

72 BADGEE.

of those who at the preaching of Hubert took the Cross in the
Summer of 1227. Matthew Paris tells us that from England alone
60,000 fighting men set out on that Crusade and that most of them
were poor. Their outset was accompanied by a celestial sign on
the night of St. John the Baptist (June 24) .^ The expedition
failed owing to the vacillation of the Emperor Frederick, who
however after being excommunicated, by Pope Gregory IX, landed
at Acre in September 1228. Here he found an army of 90,000
men of all nations, and among them the English Bishops of
Winchester and Exeter. Jerusalem surrendered to the Christian
arms early in 1229.

I can say little more of Thomas de Baggesore. In Michaelmas
Term 1228, he was sued with many others who held messuages in
the town of Newport (which was Royal Demesne) as to his title to
the same ; but the result does not appear. 84

He was also possessed of houses and land in the High Street and
in the fields of Brug. The former he sold for the large sum of
twenty-four merks to Robert son of Philip Fitz Thorold, reserving
to himself a chief rent of white gloves payable at Brug at the fair
of the vill, viz, at the feast of St. Mary Magdalene. 25

The time of Thomas de Baggesour's death I cannot further
determine than that it was before March 1246, when his son Philip
will presently appear as Lord of Badger. Besides the said Philip,
Thomas left other issue, and his wife Margery surviving.

She having brought Ashfield in frank marriage to her husband,
disposed of it some years after his death to her younger children.
She was living in 1255.

In 1246, Philip Lord of Beggesovere, who will have then lately
attained his majority, was involved in a dispute with Alan, Rector
of the Parish, who claimed the tithe of hay in all meadows within
the same. The matter was settled on March 29, in the Church of
Long Stanton before William de Ros, Clerk of the Bishop of
Hereford, Roger, Dean of Sypton, and a full Chapter. The young
Layman gave up the point, renouncing all future dispute and espe-
cially the alternative of an appeal to the " Royal Prohibition." 86

» VoL i, p. S38 (Watts' Edition).

* Placita, Michaelmas Term, 12 ft 13
Hen. Ill, memb. 5 recto.

* Charter at Apley. Hamo le Palmer
and Roger, Fits William are the attesting
Pratars of Brug.

* Charter at Badger. The Plea Bolls

of this period exhibit constant appeals to
the Curia Regis against decisions of the
Courts Christian, as they were called.
I cannot however make out why any
interference of the temporal Courts
should be apprehended in a question of
Tithes.

BADGER. 78

About this time Philip de Baggesour married, and without
license of the Crown, a step which afterwards caused him some
trouble.

Matthew Paris speaks of the memorable Iter whereby Geoffrey
de Langley and his Fellow Justices of the Forefct enriched
the King's Exchequer and impoverished his subjects. 27 The
Chronicler seems to place their visit to the Northern Counties in
the Summer of 1250. They held pleas and made arrentations in
Shropshire somewhat earlier. Among other sufferers Philip de
Baggesore was deprived of his Forestership of Shirlot on account of
his illegal marriage. He fined with the King in a sum of 20 merks
" for the same marriage and for having the Bailiwick of the Forest
of Shirlot which his Father Thomas had had." A Royal Writ,
dated Jan. 21, 1250, allows him to pay the said fine at the rate of
100*. per annum. 28

The Inquisitions of Hundreds in 1255 exhibit this Philip in
various relations, 29 viz. as holding half the Manor of Cleobury-
North, under Robert de Haluchton, as holding four virgates in capite
at Bardeley, and as Forester of the Fee in the King's free Haye of
Schyrlet, where, says the Record, " he has under him two Foresters,
viz. William de Bottesfeld and John his Brother, who give said
Philip 20*. per annum for holding their office ; and they make a levy
on oats (fields sown with oats) in Lent, and on wheat in Autumn :
and the aforesaid Philip hath in the said haye, of wind-falls as
much as seven trees, and likewise the dead trees which are wind-fallen,
the Jurors know not by what warrant except that of ancient tenure."

The Wenlock Jurors, of whom Philip himself was one, returned
him as Lord of the vill of Bagesover, and that he held it of the
Prior of Wenlock and paid 30s. per annum to the Prior, and did suit
to the Prior's Court by afforciament, and that his ancestors used to
do suit to the Hundred of Brimestre till King Richard's time.

These Jurors estimated at four hides the united Manors of Badger,
Beckbury, and Madeley. 80 The Domesday measure was however
greater, viz. half a hide, one hide, and four hides respectively, or
five-and-a-half hides collectively.

The Inquisition on the death of this Philip de Baggesore is
preserved. The King's Writ ordering the Inquest bears date

v The penalties inflicted in Shropshire
amounted to the great sum of £526. Of. 67*.
(Pipe Soli).

88 &nes, ii, 69.

9 Rot. Rund. ii, pp. 81, 82, 88.

30 Ibidem, pp. 84* 86. The rent of 80*.
is obviously inclusive of the rent-charge
of 10*. on Badger Mill.

II. 10

BADGER.

2d Dec. 1258. The Verdict of the Jurors sets forth most clearly that
co-ordinate seigneury which existed over the Lords of Badger. The
deceased, they said, had held the vill of the Prior of Wenlock at an
annual rent of 20*., and land therein of Henry de Harecourt (a de-
scendant of Le Strange), at an annual rent of half a merk. The
tenure under Harcourt is measured at two virgates of land and five
acres of wood, probably the exact Domesday estimate. He also
held Aclin ton of Sir Henry de Hastings (then Lord of Worfield),
by service of 60*. per annum.

Badger was worth £3. 5s. 9£tf. per annum. Ackleton was worth
£2. 10*. 6^rf. Philip's tenancies at Bardeley and Cleobury-North
are further particularized. The Inquest concludes with finding that
Philip was his son and next heir, and was eleven years of age, and
that all his lands were in the King's hand. 81

It does not appear that the Crown asserted any right of wardship
over this heir, whose fealty for Bardeley was accepted shortly after
as a tenure in socage. —

The Escheator had the King's precept, dated 5th Feb. 1259, to
give Philip, son of Philip de Bagesouere, livery thereof after taking
security for his relief of 6*. 32

Payment of that sum is acknowledged by the Sheriff in his
account of Michaelmas 1260. 88

This was that Philip Lord of Baggesovere who, about the year
1267-8, in other words as soon as he was of age, sold his tenure at
Astley to Salop Abbey. The particulars have been already given
except that at the time of the grant he appears to have been
married. 84

It will appear hereafter, under Alveley, how Ralph Noel, a descend-
ant of Guy le Strange, became entitled to half the chief-rent origin-
ally reserved by the same Guy when he enfeoffed Philip Pitz Stephen
in Badger. It is also supposable that Ralph Noel, thus receiving
3*. 4rf. per annum on Badger, paid half the capital chief-rent of 4*.
reserved to the Lords of Richards-Castle. Ralph Noel sold his
rent, with the liabilities attached thereto, to William de Hempton.
This makes intelligible a deed whereby William de Hempton remits
and sells to Philip de Begesovere all his right in 40d. annual rent

31 Inquisitions, 43 Hen. Ill, No. 32.
33 Fines, ii, 294.

33 Rot. Pip. 44 Hen. Ill, Salop.

34 Supra, Vol.1, p. 45. See also History
of Shrewsbury, ii, 97, 98, where most of

the Deed of Surrender is recited. The
witnesses were Henry le Forcer, John de
Esthop, and Philip de Swyney (not Scoy-
ney, as there printed).

BADGER.

which he bought of Ralph Noel ; — to have and to hold to said Philip
and his heirs with all escheats and homages, rendering therefore
yearly due service to the chief Lords of the Pee, viz. 2*. at Richards-
Castle, at the feast of St. Laurence, for all services. For this, Philip
gave £1. 16*, 8tf. M Thus did this Philip, as far as regarded a Moiety
of the Tenure, buy up the mesne Seigneury, once Guy le Strange's,
and become himself immediate tenant of the Barons of Richards-
Castle. He doubtless bought up the other moiety also, as will
appear by the Inquisition on his death.

Having, in January 1291, presented Philip his younger Son (who
could not have been more than twelve years old) to Badger Church,
he died within a few months. On the 26th of October following
King Edward's Writ of diem clausit extremum, issued from Aber-
gavenny to Malcolumb de Harley (then Escheator citra Trent)
commanding him to hold Inquest on the death of Philip de
Brachesovere. The Jurors met at Brug on Nov. 19, 1291, and
found as follows, viz. — That besides his Tenures at Bardeley, North
Cleobuiy, and Cold- Weston, the Deceased had held a certain Baili-
wick of Shirlot Forest, not of the Crown (that is not of ancient
demesne) but of the King's 'Escheat through (forfeiture of) Robert
de Belesme ; — that the office was worth 13*. 4d. per annum, and that
neither Philip nor his Ancestors had done other service for the same
than fealty to the Chief Forester of Shropshire. 86

" He had also held of the Prior of Wenlock one messuage and
four-and-a-half virgates of land in Baggesore, at a rent of 30*. 87 and
the tenure was altogether worth 70*."

" He had also held of the heir of Robert de Mortimer of Richards-

M Charter at Badger,— attested by Sir
William de Huggeford, John le Poer,
Alan de Glazeley, Kichard de Bagesore
(Uncle of the Grantor I think), William
de Pilarditon, Robert de Dodinton, and
others. The Poers were Lords of Boms-
ley, which they held by service of one
Knight's Fee under the Barons of
Richards-Castle. Badger is sometimes
included in this Knight's Fee. If properly
so, then Le Poer will have been mediate
between the Baron of Richard's Castle
and Le Strange' s coheirs. But I never find
Le Poor's interest operating at Badger,
in fact it will have been at any time little
more than nominal,

36 These specifications were obviously to

bar any claim which the Crown might as-
sert to wardship of the heir.

87 The contemporary Taxation of Pope
Nicholas (page 164) gives among the
Temporalities of Wenlock a rent of only
£1. as receivable from Baggesoure, but
the above estimate includes 10*. rent-
charge on the Mill. Lord Forester's Re-
gister contains two memoranda of the
fealty acknowledged, in 1502 and 1507,
by Thomas and Henry Petyt, then re-
spectively succeeding to Badger. A quit-
rent of 20*. per annum and two suits at
the Great Hundred Court of Burton wero
the annual services recognized by each.
A Heriot on the death of any tenant was
also acknowledged. — It was three quarters

BADGER.

Castle (then a minor) in Baggesore, one carucate of land in de-
mesne, eight acres of wood, and four acres of meadow, worth 20*.
10*. and 13*. respectively, per annum. He had also held at Acliton
twelve virgates of Sir John de Hastings, of the fee of Worfield, by
service of 60*., and this was]worth £6. 19*. 6tf. per annum; also six
acres of meadow which he held there were worth 16*. per annum,
and he owed suit to the Manor Court of Worfield."

The Jurors concluded by stating his son Thomas to be his next
heir, and that he entered his fourteenth year on the feast of St.
Laurence last past (i. e. Aug. 10th, 1291). 38

Thomas de Baggesovere (with whom I must conclude these
extracts) consequently came of age Aug. 10, 1299, and on June 6,
1300, I find him exercising his office, as Forester of the Fee, with
others of the same rank, and contributing to the great Perambu-
lation or settlement which then defined the rights of the Crown in
regard to the Forests of Shropshire, 89

On March 15, 1301, this Thomas occurs as holding over Roger
de Bagesore, his relation and Tenant at Cleobury-North, who was
then deceased. 40

Before 1316, Thomas was himself dead, leaving a widow Anabel,
who, in January of that year, presented to Badger Church ; and a
son Philip, who, though he can hardly ^have been of age, is yet
entered as Lord of Badger in the Feodary which was ordered to be
taken in March following. 41

BADGER CHUECH.

Badger and Beckbury evidently formed a detached portion of
the great Saxon Parish of St. Milburg, a condition which is repre-
sented at this day by their belonging to the Diocese of Hereford,
though isolated among Parishes which were formerly in Chester
and are now in Lichfield Diocese.

The Church here, probably founded in the beginning of the

of wheat and three of oats, but had been
compounded " from ancient time " by a
money payment of 1 merk (Register, fo. 17) .
In the Valor of 1534 these outlying assets
of Wenlock Priory are estimated in gross
under the head of Foreign Ments; but
after the Dissolution I find that the Lords
of Badger paid a quit-rent of £1. 14*.
annually to the Crown, which I doubt

not represented, though not quite exactly,
their older obligations to the Priory.
(Blakeway MSS).

38 Inquisition, 19Edw. I, No. 10.

9 Salop Chartulary, No. 279.

40 Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 7.

41 Nomina Villarum (Parliamentary
Writs, iv, 397).

BADGER.

twelfth century, and by the Lords of the Fee, was always in their
gift ; bat they were bound to present their nominee to the Prior of
Wenlock, who further presented him to the Bishop.

A pension also (for the due payment of which this mediate right
of Presentation enabled the Prior to exact fealty and security from
each nominee) was reserved to Wenlock. Such were in this
instance the remains of the ancient spiritual jurisdiction of St.
Milburg.

The Formula by which a Prior of Wenlock presented any nominee
of the " Real Patron " of this Church is preserved. It addresses
the Bishop of Hereford, or his Vicar General, and recites that the
Nomination to the Parochial Church or Curative Chapel of Badger
belongs to A. B. (the Lord of Badger) by reason of a concession
canonically made thereof by the Prior's predecessors. It further
alleges an existent vacancy, and concludes by presenting C. B. (as
nominated by A. B. to the Prior) to the Bishop, for admission;
" saving to us a pension of 40rf. which in ancient times was wont
to be paid to our house." 42

This form seems to have been used in 1524 by Roland Prior of
Wenlock when presenting a Clerk to Charles Booth, then Bishop
of Hereford. —

It explains not only what follows as regards Badger Church, but
gives us the rat^o of many similarly mediate rights of presen-
tation.

In 1291, this Chapel is merely entered as being of less than £4.
annual value. It was therefore not assessable ; nor is the Prior's
pension mentioned. 48

On May 23, 1331, Thomas (Charlton) Bishop of Hereford, in
course of a Visitation, was at Wenlock. On this occasion the
Prior exhibited his titles to a number of spiritual claims, which
were duly examined, and pronounced to be satisfactory by a Charter
of the same Bishop dated at Morville, on May 27 following.
Among these recognized rights are, " the Pensions which the Prior
and Convent are receiving in the Churches or Chapels of Glazeleye,
Maddeleye, Parva Wenlock, Bechebury, Bagesore, Wilileye, and
Borewardesleye."

In the Assessment of Parishes (a.d. 1341 **) neither Badger nor

43 Register at Willey, fo. 25, b.

* Pope Nicholas 1 Taxation, p. 1G7. b.
" Ecclesia de Baddeshovere (in Decauatu
de Wenlak) non valet £4."

44 not. Vat. 22 Ed. Ill, part iii, numb.
34 (Inspexinuut) ,

BADGER.

Beckbury appear. Their proper place was under the Deanery of
Wenlock, but their isolated position perhaps preserved them from
the ordinary notice of the Commissioners.

An Extent (or Valuation) of the possessions of Wenlock Priory,
taken Sept. 6, 1379, gives the Chapel of Bagesore as in the Presen-
tation of the Prior and as worth 5 merks (£3. 6*. 8rf.) per
annum. 4 *

Among the receipts of the Sacristan of Wenlock Priory appa-
rently in time of Henry VII, one of 3*. 4rf. payable at the Trans-
lation of St. Milburg (May 26) from Bagsor is enumerated. The
same due is entered less particularly in the Valor of 1534 and in
the Minister's Accounts of 1541. 46

The Valor states the Rectory of Bagesore, of which George
Barret was then Incumbent, to be worth in glebe and tithes
£4. 11*. 2d.; the charges whereon were the above Pension and
4d. per annum for Synodals.

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

Roger, Clerk of Bagoesour, has already occurred in two
deeds which we have dated about 1174 and 1211 respectively. I
suppose Roger in each case to have been Incumbent of the Church
whether there were two of the same name or not.

Alan was Rector here in 1246 as stated above.

Jan. 28, 1291, the Prior and Convent of Wenlock presented by
their letter patent, Philip de Baggesore, Clerk, to the vacant
Church ; which letter Philip, Father of the Presentee, exhibited to
the Bishop, requesting him to show favour to his son in the premises.
To whom the Bishop replied, that he would commend the Church to
some good Priest till he should see fit to order otherwise ; to which
arrangement Philip (whose right it was to present a fit Parson to the
Prior and Convent that they again should present the same to the
Bishop, whenever the Church were vacant) fully acceded. 47

June 19, 1308. Martin de Wistanestowe, Priest, was
admitted on Presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock.

Jan. 27, 1316. Philip de Striethay, Clerk, was admitted on
presentation of Anabel Lady of Badger, " the true Patron," trans-
mitted through the Prior and Convent. Philip's death took place

44 Monasticon, v, 78, No. viii.
46 Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 209, 216.
Momuticon, v, 80, xii.

* Blakeway MSS. from Hereford Re-
gisters. The youth of this nominee has
been pointed out above.

BADGER. 79

June 22, 1344, and on July 28, 1344, it was found by Inquisition
that Philip Lord of Bagsore, was the true Patron, exercising his
right through the Prior of Wenlock ; that Anabella, Philip's Mother,
last presented ; and that the " Cure of souk at Badger remained
with the Vicar of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock." —

John, son op John Lord op Beckbury, aged twenty-five years
and more, was accordingly presented by the said Philip, and admitted
by the Bishop. —

There was an informality in this. Wenlock Priory being at this
time in the King's hands, in consequence of the war with France,
its mediate right of Patronage should have been exercised by the
Crown. The King however, being ignorant of any presentation
having been made, and conceiving the right to belong ordinarily
to Wenlock, presented John Wotenhull in the following year
(1345) «

Wotenhull immediately attempted to oust Beckbury, and at this
juncture Philip de Bagsore the Patron died. The matter con-
sequently remained in dispute two years, when " William de
Bagesore, Lord of the Manor of Bagesore, petitioned the King,
showing that nomination to the Chapel belonged to the Lordship,
and that all his Ancestors had immemorially presented a Clerk to
the Prior and Convent of Wenlock, who had nominated the same
Clerk to the Bishop, and that Philip, the Petitioner's father, not
aware that the right of the Priory was in the Crown because of the
war, had on a late vacancy presented John de Beckbury to the
Prior, who presented to the Bishop, who instituted the said John."
The King hereupon issued a Patent revoking his presentation of
Wotenhull. 49

After the death of John de Beckbury, and on —

March 23, 1349, the King, addressing J. Bishop of Hereford,
presents Hugh Carles, Clerk, to the " Chapel of Baggesovere, as
being nominated to us by William de Baggesore, to whom it
appertains so to nominate to us, seeing that the Priory of Wenlock
is in our hands by reason of the war." 60 The Bishop's Admission
of Hugh Carles, date April 7, 1349, recites th? above Patent.

Oct. 8, 1368. Roger de Hondeslowe was presented by Richard
Clodeshele and Alice his wife, through medium of the Prior, &c.
He was admitted by the Bishop on Oct. 18 following, and, for some

* Pat. 19 Ed. Ill, p. 1, memb. 23. I w Pat. 28 Ed. Ill, p. 1, m. 23.
49 Pat. 21 Ed. Ill, p. 1, m. 10. I

80 RYTON.

cause of doubt again occurring, was confirmed in his possession by
a Royal Patent dated Feb. 24, 1376.

March 14, 1409. William Newton, Chaplain, was instituted
on nomination of Thomas Smythe, and on presentation of the Prior
of Wenlock. 51

&ptom

Dugdale, speaking of places thus named in Warwickshire, assigns
to them an etymology " obvious enough, forasmuch as the soyl
there is of a light sandy disposition, and beareth Rye best of any
Grain." 1

Domesday notices the Shropshire Manor as follows ; —

"The same Osbern (Fitz Richard) holds Ruitone (under Earl
Roger) Wiuar and Brictstual held it (in time of King Edward) for
two Manors. Here are v hides geldable. There is (arable) land
(sufficient) for viii ox-teams. In demesne there are n ox-teams
and in serfs, with in boors. Here is a mill rendering viii horse-
loads of fine wheat (siliginis). In time of King Edward (the Con-
fessor) the Manor was worth xxx shillings (per annum). Now it is
worth xx shillings. He (Osbern) found it waste." 2

I have already said that of the three Alnodestreu Manors held
by Osbern Fitz Richard under Earl Roger in 1086, no interest in
two seems to have passed to his descendants. ' We have scanty
means of judging how this disseverance happened, and no hint as to
any forfeiture, partial or general, having befallen the early Barons
of Richards-Castle.

True it is that Osbern Fitz Richard joined in the rebellion of
1188, when Wulstan Bishop of Worcester so ably maintained
the cause of William Rufus in the West ; but then the chiefest

41 Hereford Registers (BlakewayMSS). | Denizen by Richard II in 1395. .Hence the
The Priory of Wenlock was declared | restitution of all its rights of Patronage.

1 Dugdates WarmcktMre (Thomas's I * Domesday, fo. 257, b. 2.
Edition, i, 46). I

BTTON. 81

if not the most open of the Revolutionists was the Norman Earl of
Shrewsbury himself, and he was freely pardoned. His less politic
Vassal may however have suffered a partial forfeiture even in a dis-
trict where his interests were associated with those of so influential
a Suzerain.

Another hypothesis, as to this and some similar and early
dismemberments of great Fiefs, remains to be offered. There can
be no question that the original Norman settlement of this County
involved all the ordinary feudal tenures, as well those by Knight's
service as by Castle-Guard and Petit Serjeantry of other kinds.
The Shropshire Domesday however takes no notice of such lia-
bilities, as attaching to particular Manors ; and indeed these details
hardly seem appropriate to a Census which had for its object the
ascertainment of gross rather than net value and extent. The
silence of Domesday as to conditions of tenure does not, in short,
imply the non-existence of such conditions at the time when the
Survey was taken. It is therefore very possible that to Osbern
Fitz Richard's tenure of Ryton and Brockton services were attached,
in 1086, identical or similar with those which were afterwards exacted
from the Tenants of those Manors. It is further very possible that
a Baron, the bulk of whose Fief lay in distant parts of this, or in
other Counties, might find some outlying Manors a mere incum-
brance; in other words, that the services with which they happened
to be charged were more than they were worth to him. In such
cases a direct surrender or a neglect to comply with the terms of
tenure would lead to the same result, viz. a reversion of the
Manor or Manors in question to the Suzerain. Thus, as I appre-
hend, did Osbern Fitz Richard's tenure of Ryton and Brockton
cease, and those Manors become subject to the re-disposal of the
Norman Earl or of the Crown.

That which I have next to offer about Ryton amounts to little
more than a choice between two possible alternatives, one of which
aeems however to be recommended by some external evidence.
Before the death of King Henry I, and probably by that Monarch,
it was granted as the whole or part of a Knight's Fee either to one
whom I shall presently notice as Engelard de Stretton, or else to
some one from whom the said Engelard inherited. If the former,
then Engelard must have survived his feoffment at least forty-three
years (a thing not impossible in itself, but which implies either an
unusually early advancement or an extraordinary longevity of the
Feoffee) : if the latter, then the descent from the first Feoffee to

n. 11

82 RYTON.

Engclard will have been through a female, for Engelard (being a
younger son of his Father) can have inherited nothing except
through his Mother, she not being the Mother of his elder Brother.
And the latter theory will become more probable from a fact,
which will presently appear, viz. that Engelard's successors at
Ryton were the descendants of his Sister and not those of his elder
Brother. It is obvious therefore, according to all ordinary roles of
succession, that the said Sister was his uterine Sister, and that the
fact which excluded their elder Brother from this inheritance must
have been his non-participation in the whole blood of his Father's
younger children.

This Engelard de Stretton was a man of great importance in his
day ; and as Ryton was his only, or principal, tenure in capite, it is
fitting here to relate all that I can learn of him. Some scattered
evidences, which when brought together will explain each other,
should suffice also to show that what I have above advanced without
references is not therefore mere theory. Engelard de Stretton was,
as I suppose, younger Son of that Ralph de Pichford of whom we
have already heard as a Tenant in capite, and as having distin-
guished himself by essential services, to King Henry I during the
siege of Brug Castle in 1102. His elder Brother, Richard de
Pichford, succeeded their presumed Father, Ralph, not only in
several Manors which had formed the Domesday Fief of Norman
Venator, but also in that addition at Little Brug with which "King
Henry rewarded the zeal of his Follower.

Before the year 1157, Richard de Pichford and Engelard his
Brother are witnesses to a deed whereby William Fitz Alan (I)
and certain of his Vassals concurred in granting Sundorn to
Haghmon Abbey. 3

Also before 1157, when Richard de Pichford gave to the same
house a hide of land in Brome (near Ellesmere), Engelard his
Brother was present and (being I suppose Tenant thereof) con-
sented. Again, after the said Richard's death, and before 1172,
" Engelard de Stretton" makes an independent grant of this hide
of land, adding thereto the site of a Mill. 4

Richard de Pichford dying I suppose in 1157, and leaving his
son, another Richard, under age, the latter, as a Tenant in capite,
became a ward of the Crown. At Michaelmas 1157, the following

5 Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 213. | « lb. fo. 40, and Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 11.

RYTON.

entry occurs on the Shropshire Pipe Roll: — "Engelard renders
account of 20 merks for custody of the land of his Nephew." He
had in fact bought the wardship from King Henry II ; and he paid
the said fine in this and the following year.'

Thus much for the family and relations of Engelard ; and next
for the reason of his being called " de Stretton" rather than " de
Pichford." This will appear most satisfactorily. Within a few
months of the accession of Henry II, he (Engelard) was made
Castellan of Stretton, then a Royal Fortress and Manor. The
Manor, fiscally reputed to be worth £4. per annum, furnished his
Salary. Hence the following charge made by the Sheriff of
Shropshire on the King's Revenue in 1156, viz. "To Engelard,
Custos of the Castle, £4. in Stratton." And each Sheriff till the
year 1177 repeats this annual charge as'of £4. bestowed " in custody
of Stratton Castle."

In the Summer of the latter year, this Salary was augmented to
one of £20. per annum chargeable on Wellington, Edgmond, and
Stretton, and at the same time another Castellan than Engelard is
named. The probable reason of this will appear presently.

To show Engelard de Stretton's connexion with Ryton, I must
now refer back to the witnesses of that deed, whereby before 1172,
Richard de Picheford granted Picheford Mill to Haghmon. Three
of those witnesses are Nicholas, Brother of the Grantor, Engelard
(whom I suppose to be Engelard de Stretton and Uncle of the
Grantor), and Richard Fitz Odo de Ruttune (whom I take to be
Engelard's Tenant at Ryton).

I will make these assumptions very plausible. In the year 1 165-6,
the return of the Tenants in capite of the Kingdom, known as the
Liber Niger, was made. 7 Engelard de Stratton was one of the
King's Vassals of Salopescire, whose Carta or Return is preserved.
He gives the King greeting, and his faithful service, recites the
Royal Mandate, and in compliance therewith, informs the King
that he (Engelard) r( has only one Knight, viz. Richard Fitz Odo,
and that he has no Knight of the New Feoffment." 8 The meaning
of this is that Engelard de Stretton only held one Knight's Fee
in capite, that the Feoffment creating it was of date anterior to the
death of Henry I (1135), and that the Knight then holding it
under Engelard was Richard Fitz Odo.

* Sot. Pip. 3 and 4 Hen. II, Salop.

• Supra* Vol I, p. 858.

7 Supra, Vol. I, p. 3.

8 Liber Niger, voL i, pp. 147, 148.

BYTON.

Beyond his attestation of several local Deeds, which will appear
in their proper connexion, I have little more to say of Engelard de
Stretton. At Michaelmas 1173 and 1174, he appears as having
acted as Visor over Guy le Strange's repairs of Shrewsbury
Castle.

At Michaelmas 1177, he had been amerced by the King himself
for trespass on the Royal Forests, a circumstance which tallies so
nearly with his ceasing to be Castellan of Stretton, that I cannot
but associate the two events. His amercement was 10 merks and
a Destrier. He paid 5 merks in 1177, and the balance before
Michaelmas 1178. 9

Presuming him not to have long survived the latter year, I will
merely say of his succession that he had a daughter Felicia, but
that his eventual heirship was in his Sister Alice and her issue
by her husband Philip de Burgo ; that the son of the said Philip
and Alice was Bertram de Burgo, 10 and that Bertram as well as his
Son and perhaps Grandson of the same name, successively in-
herited a kind of seigneury in Ryton. They had other interests
also, both in Staffordshire and Shropshire, and, as regards the latter,
these De Burghs usually appear to have been Tenants of the Pich-
fords, that is of the male descendants of that Ralph who was
Father of their maternal Ancestress, Alice.

But there was a long interval during which the seigneury of
De Burgh at Ryton is unrecorded. The apparent reason of this is
that the tenure from being simply by service of a Knight's- Fee came
to be commuted for a tenure by service of doing ward at the
King's Castle of Shrawardine, and that so, he who held Ryton
under De Burgh and performed the latter service was reputed to be
and often registered as the actual tenant in Capite.

Of him and his succession we will now speak : —

We have already seen him as Richard Fitz Odo in 1165, and as
Richard Fitz Odo of Ruttune before 1172. He or his Son, called
simply Richard de Ruiton, appears as a witness to various deeds

• Rot. Pip. 28 and 24 Hen. II, Salop.

10 Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. ocxiij*
This is a memorandum by some Officer of
the Exchequer as to the descent of the
Knight's Fee once held by Engelard de
Stretton. It merely traces the descent to
Alice, Engelard's Sister, wife of Philip de
Burgo, and to her Successor, Bertram de

Burgo. Mr. Hunter's Index of the Liber
Ruber attributes this portion of its con-
tents to transactions of the time of Henry
II and Richard I. I know from other
evidence that Bertram thus mentioned
was dead before 1219. The other parti-
culars of this family shall form a future
subject.

RYTON.

affecting land in the neighbourhood, the dates of which may be
summarily taken as between 1190 and 1230.

In October 1203, Richard de Ruton occurs as a Juror in causes
of Grand Assize tried at Salop ; he was himself amerced half a merk
for some transgression, and was Surety for the fine of a neighbour-
ing landholder, Henry de Hugford. 11

At Michaelmas 1204, when King John's fifth Scutage had been
Assessed, as well as upon Tenants by Knight's service as Tenants
by Serjeantry, Richard de Ruiton had been charged and had paid
half a merk to the same, as if he were a tenant of one-fifth of a
Knight's fee. 13

In the year 1211, he is entered as one of the King's Tenants
by Serjeantry in the County of Salop, his service being to find one
serving foot-soldier with a lance, for the ward of the King's
Castle of Shrawardine. 18

His trust in 1220, has before been noticed. 14

At the Assizes of November 1221, he appears both as a Knight
and Juror of Grand Assize, but beyond his attestations of some
later deeds I can say nothing further of him.

His successor seems to have been John de Ruton, who in two
lists of Fitz Alan's Shropshire Barony is said, about 1240, to hold
half a Knight's fee in Ruton of John Fitz Alan. 16 A third and
nearly contemporary list omits this entry, 16 and indeed Ryton could
only be said to be held of Fitz Alan because it owed service to
Shrawardine, a Castle of which John Fitz Alan was then seized.

This John de Ruton appears on several Juries, and as witness of
many local deeds. At the Assizes of January 1256, he was one of
the two principal Jurors of Brimstree Hundred whose office was to
choose their ten fellows. I do not find him attesting deeds to which
I can assign a later date than 1263.

His successor, William de Ruton, I find similarly engaged as a
Juror and a Witness from about 1270 to 1303.

Early in that period, he gave two acres to Wombridge Priory, —
the said two acres lying intermixed with lands in Orindle which

6 John, m. 4 recto,

u Salop
6 dono, 4 dono.

» Bot. Pip, 6 John, Salop.

" Terta de Kevill, fo. 254.
Ruber Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvij.

14 Supra, Vol I, p. 800.

>* Testa de NeviU, pp. 48, 49.

Liber

16 Ibidem, p. 44. At the same time
Ralph de Fichford is said to hold a
Knight's Fee in Albrighton and Ruton t»
eapUe (Ibidem, p. 45). This again is not
absolutely correct. Ralph de Pichford
had nothing at Ryton, except perhaps the
Advowson of the Church.

RTTON.

had previously been given to the same Canons by Richard de
Grenhull. 17

But Buildwas Abbey profited to a much greater extent by the grants
and alienations of this William. He had sold Ryton Mill to Hugh
de Weston who, calling himself Hugh Lord of Weston, releases
all his right therein to the said Abbey, his charter being attested by
Sir Robert de Knigteleg, Sir Hugh de Beaumes, Sir John Giffard,
Knights, Michael de Morton, Master Thomas de Blumenhull
(Blymhill), Ranulph de Grenhull, and Thomas de Beckebur. 18

This deed, whose date may be placed between 1279 and 1284 19 was
followed immediately by a confirmation from the Lord of the Fee
which shall be given more fully. —

" I William Lord of Ritton have granted and confirmed to God
and Saint Mary and the Monks of Bildewas a certain Mill in the
vill of Ritton which the Monks have of the gift of Sir Hugh de
Weston. I have granted it free from all earthly service, with ease-
ments and free pasturage for their horses and beasts of burden
coming to the Mill, in places nearest thereunto, except corn-fields
and meadows under crop ; also I grant that the Miller, for the time
being, may have around the same Mill, Cocks, Hens, Capons, Geese,
Ganders, Chickens, and Ducks ; also I quit the whole bylet at the
back of the said Mill as on all sides the water bounds it ; also a
certain meadow in the vill of Ritton, which the Monks have of the
gift of Thomas de Marham near the meadow called the Moremede
which they have of my gift. — Witnesses : Sirs Hugh de Weston,
Hugh de Beaumeys, John Giffard, Knights ; John de Sty vynton,
John de Prees, Hugh de Halegton, Robert le Fremon de
Albrichton."

v Wombridge Chartulary. Tit, Gren-
kulf No. 3. The land is farther expressed
to be bounded by Ruhamstrete and the
water-course of Hadinton (Harrington). —
Witnesses : Phillip de Bekebur, John de
Grenhull, and John de Stiventon.

18 Boll of Buildwas Charters (in pos-
session of Thomas Langley, Esq. of Gold-
ing, 1736), — as copied by Wm. Mitton,
and extracted from the collection of the
latter by the Rev. J. B. Blakeway.

The Document or rather Chartulary
from which these deeds are taken divides
the various Charters of Buildwas into two
classes, vis. those which passed " before

the Statute, and those which did not."
In the latter class are arranged the four
deeds now under notice. They therefore
passed after 1279, when the first Mort-
main Statute, entitled "De Beligiosis,"
became Law.

So great a check did this enactment give
to the Monastic acquisition of lands that
it was thus known among Monks simply
as "The Statute."

19 The grounds for the later limit of
date (1284) will appear presently. The
names of all attesting witnesses fully bear
out the date thus ascertained.

RYTON. 87

By a further deed very similarly attested, the same William,
Lord of Ryton, grants to Buildwas " a certain plat of ground in
the territory of Ruton thus bounded, viz. from a certain Cross
which stands on the boundary between Cospeford (Cosford) and
Archesleg (Atchley) along a road to Crassitismere (Crasset'sMere),
and thence along a made fence to a certain white-thorn, and
thence to the headland of a certain culture which extends to
Trendelleswallemerch, and thence to a place called Munebehatch,
and thence along the high road as far as the first-named Cross/'
He also grants the Monks " common pasture for all their animals
lying at their Grange of Cospeford, in a certain plot of his enclosure,
viz. from the road which is above the two Stews, going down
between the said Stews to the bank of Woth" (Worfe).

Another Charter of the same William conveys yet more extensive
privileges to the Monks. — He grants them common pasture for all
their animals in their Granges of Gospesford and of Hatton, without
number, taxation, or count, through his whole Fee of Ruton, except
in a tract of land fenced by a foot-path which passes from his
greater Stew to the high-road outside his Court-house at Atchley,
towards Ryton, and so along the said road to Calvercroft and
thence to Cecilies Meadow. — If the Monks' Cattle happen to stray
within this boundary they shall not be impounded but restored
without trouble ; but if they be found there with a Keeper, surety
shall be taken from said Keeper for reasonable damages, to be
settled by two Umpires within eight days after the trespass. The
Monks may also make a bridge across the water of Wergh (Worfe),
over which they can drive their cattle to said pasture from Hatton.
— Witnesses : Sirs Hugh de Beaumeys, Peter de Eyton, and John
Clifford, Knights ; Philip Lord of Baggesovere, Ranulph de
Grenhull, John de Bispeston (Bishton), John de Styvynton, Hugh
de Haleghton (Haughton), Roger Hod, and others.

These and possibly some still further grants of the same William
de Ruton, having been made subsequent to the Mortmain Statute
of 1279, required a Royal License, which was not usually issued till
an Inquisition had been held as to the damage which the Crown
might sustain by allowing the transfer. Such an Inquisition was
held in 14 Edw. I (1285-6), and appears to have reported in favour
both of these grants at Ryton and of some contemporary acquisition
made by the Monks at Bikedon (Bicton near Shrewsbury). 80

* The Inquisition is lost from the proper I Inquisitions was first made, but not when
Custody. It existed when the Calendar of | that Reoord was printed (1806). All

RYTON.

In the meantime, that is abont 1284, a Record of Tenures in
the Hundred of Brimstree was made. It points out the seigneury
of Engelard de Stretton's heirs as still existing at Byton. " William
de Ruton," it says/ "holds the vill of Ruton of Bartholomew de
Burgo in chief, by one fourth of a Knight's Fee, but there is no
mention of whom the said Bartholomew holds in chief/' 21

The latest that I find of William de Ruton is his occurrence as
second Juror on an Inquest which sat at Donington, June 15,
1303, and which was to report upon the prescriptive Manorial
rights of the Lords of Albrighton.

Before the year 1316 his own interests at Ryton had passed, either
by purchase or descent, to Roger Carles, who is then entered as
Lord"

This Roger Carles (whom I take to have been Son of Nicholas
Carles of Albrighton) had been for some time a prominent person
in this neighbourhood, and so continued for at least sixteen years
longer. All that I shall further say of him here is, that on
Jan. 11, 1318, he obtained the King's Charter of Free Warren in
Ryton, Whiston, Bonigale,and Albrighton, in each of which localities
he will therefore have had a considerable interest.*

BYTON CHUBCH.

The parochial district now attached to this Church would seem
originally to have been within the Saxon Parish of Idshall. M The
separation probably took place in the twelfth century, and the
Founder of the district Church was still more evidently the Lord
of the Fee.

About the year 1186, the Priests of Ryton, Albrighton, and

we can gather from the Abstract is that
it was an inquiry as to the tenure of
William de Bouton and in behalf of the
Abbot of Bildwas ; and that it concerned
or named the following places, viz. Cos-
pesford, Hatton, Bouton, and Bikedon
(Calendar, voL i, p. 92).

In 1291, the Monks of Buildwas were
seized of a Mill at Bitton, which was of 10*.
annual value (Pop* ^cA. Taxation,^. 260).

31 KWbffs Quest, a Becord of extreme
value as regards this Hundred inasmuch
as the Brimstree Inquests of 1255 and
1274 are both lost.

22 Parliamentary Writs, voL iv, p. 399.
The place is printed in this very inaccu-
rate Becord as Ruyx.

28 Charter, 11 Edw. II, No. 43. The
line of Roger Carles ended in a female
who carried the Manor and Advowson of
Byton to the Gorbetts of Habberley, after-
wards of Longnor.

24 In token of the original subjection of
Byton Church to that of Idshall, the Vicar
of ShuTnal is still entitled to an annual
pension of 2s. from the Rector of
Byton.

RYTON. 89

Dawley, attest a charter relating to Sutton Advowson, a circum-
stance which indicates the previous existence of a Church in each
locality. 15 The name of the Ryton Incumbent was Bernard.

At the Assizes of September 1272, the Jurors of Brimstree
Hundred reported that William de Cheney, whilst Constable of
Brag, took away the key of the Rector of Ryton's grange (i. e. barn),
saying that he would have corn for the Castle of Brug, and that
this was since the war (1265) and the proclamation of peace, and
that said William took half-a-merk from the said Rector for re-
storation of the key. 26

In 1291, the Church of Ryton, in the Diocese of Lichfield and
Coventry, the Archdeaconry of Salop, and Deanery of Newport, was
valued at £2. per annum? 1

In 1341, the Assessors of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb,
charged only 10*. on this Parish. The reasons for so small an
assessment were because the small tithes, offerings, hay-tithe, and
glebe, which went to make up the greater taxation (£2.), were not
to be reckoned in the ninth, and because the Rector had a carucate
of land besides, and several Tenants, and because much land lay
untilled by reason of the poverty and quitting of the occupiers. 28

In 1534, Richard Rowley being Rector here, the gross value of
his Benefice was ascertained by the King's Commissioners to be £6,
on which there was an annual charge of 6*. 8tf. for Procurations,
and 1*. 5rf. for Synodals. 29

The Advowson of Ryton seems to have been held by the elder
branch of the Pichfords rather than by the De Burghs who were
representatives of the younger branch. — There is a similar compli-
cation of these two interests in nearly every Manor where either
was concerned.

An Inquest which was held at Albrighton, May 6, 1285, on the
death of John de Pichford, found him to have been seized of this
Advowson. 80 The Lords of Albrighton continued to present to the
Church for forty years longer; then the Advowson and the Manor
became united in the Carles family, and both descended to Corbett
of Longnor. 81

» Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. " Broc-
ton et Suttone Madoke," No. lxxiv.

* Axssite Moll, 66 Hen. Ill, m. 22
dono.

* Pope Nick. Tax. p. 245.

* InquisiHones Nonarum, p. 198.
» Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 187.
» Inquisitions, 13 Edw. I, No. 14.
81 Sheriff* of Shropshire, p. 126.

II. 12

90 KYTON.

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

About 1186, Bernard, Priest op Ryton, has occurred above.

In 1314, the benefice being vacant by death of Sir Adam de
Picheford, late Rector, and being under sequestration, the Bishop,
on June 12, at Prees, gives custody of the Fruits and Profits thereof
to John de Stevynton, Acolyte, who need not render any account
thereof to the Bishop ; and Nov. 1st, 1314, the same John de
Stevynton was admitted to the Church on presentation of Sir John
la Warr, Knight.

He resigned July 26, 1320 ; and on —

Nov. 29, 1320, Roger de Scheffeld, Acolyte, was admitted on
presentation of the same. 83 He resigned in 1324, and on June 22
of that year, Sir Richard de Gounston, Chaplain, was admitted to
the Church and instituted (in person of Richard de Cressevyle,
Clerk, his Proctor) on the presentation of Sir John de la Warre.

After the death of Richard de Gonston, viz. on —

Aug. 28, 1342, the Bishop conferred this Church on Sir John
de Cotyngham, Priest, the right of collation having in this instance
lapsed to the Bishop. In 1344, Cotyngham exchanged this
benefice for the Chantry of Conedovere in the Cathedral Church of
Lichfield ; and on —

June 11, Hugh de Greyby, Clerk, late Incumbent of the said
Chantry, was admitted here on presentation of William Carles, the
true Patron. Greyby resigned Aug. 1, 1349, and on —

Sept. 23 following, William Taylor, Chaplain, was admitted on
presentation of William Carcles. 83

In Sept. 1365, William Walker was Rector of Ryton. 84 He
died in 1387.

John de Bysschton, Priest, was his Successor. 85

GRINDLE.

This Township, not mentioned in Domesday, but which seems
subsequently to have constituted a distinct Manor, is entitled to
another name than modern usage has bestowed upon it. It was of
old called Gren-hulle or Gren-hul, t. e. Green Hill.

Though in the Parish of Ryton, I cannot show it to have been
held under the same superior Lords, nor yet can I well support a
surmise that it might have been a member of Idshal.

» Lichfield Register A, folios 67, 669 b.
» Lichfield Register B, folios 204,
218 b, 219, 2^4 b.

M Charter at Haughton.
* Blakewaj's MSS.

EYTON. 91

The Feoffees here took name from the place, and seem, as a
family, to have been of nearly equal importance with their neigh-
bours at Byton.

The first of whom I find mention is Robert de Grenhul, who
about the year 1190, attests Walter de Dunstanville's grant of
Aynulfs-Lee to Wombridge Priory. 86

At the Assizes of October 1203, this Robert de Grenhul sued
Hugh de Beckbury for unduly raising a stank in Beckbury whereby
Robert's freehold in Grenhull was injured, and his meadows inun-
dated. Damages of 8*. were given, and the stank ordered to be
lowered to its previous state. At the same Assizes, Robert de
Grenhul essoigned his own attendance at the "common summons/ 7

He was succeeded by Richard de Grenhul, who in 1220, was a
Recognizor in a great trial about the Advowson of Tong.

From this time till about 1250, Richard de Grenhul appears
a frequent witness to Charters of Wombridge and Buildwas.

At the Assizes of November 1221, Richard de Grenehull was
Defendant in a trial of Grand Assize, wherein William Coterel
sued him for a half-a-virgate in Herthull. 37 Richard gave half -a-
merk for license to accord, his Surety being Hugh de Beckbury.
The fine which resulted is preserved. — Thereby Richard conceded
the premises to William, — to have and to hold of Richard and his
heirs at a rent of 12d. For this William gave two merks. 88

This Richard, calling himself Lord of Grenhull, and for the
health of the souls of himself, his Ancestors, and Successors, made
a considerable grant to Wombridge Priory. The gift comprises
two half-virgates in the vill of Grenhulle with the meadow ap-
pertaining thereto, also a meadow called Alan's meadow, also a
culture bounded " by the green lane, which goes from Brocton to
Ruton and by the rivulet which runs under Hadinton" (Harrington).

He also allows tha^t the Canons shall have pasturage for 200
sheep, and for the working Cattle of themselves, or their tenants,
or assignees occupying said land ; the latter right to extend to the
Grantor's meadows or cultures when not under crop. He also
grants free transit through his land for their carts and other imple-
ments, and liberty to get stone in his quarries ; and lastly that the
Canons shall be quit of all suit of his Court, and need not attend
there unless it be for their own pleasure or profit. 89

* Wombridge Chartulary; Tit. Lega
Prions, No. 1. The other witnesses appear
to be dependants or connections of the
Grantor, who was Lord of Idshale.

v Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, m. 1 recto.

I cannot determine the situation of the
premises in dispute.

» Pedes linitm, 6 Hen. m. Salop.

39 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Gren-
hul, No. xii. The witnesses are Sir

RYTON.

Richard de Grenhull by another and later deed concedes to Sir
Walter de Dunstanvill and his heire the Mill of Grenhull with the
site thereof, and the whole suit of the vill of Grenhull, and right of
road to and from said Mill, and right of dam and water-course and
fishery, from Bicford down to the same Mill ; rendering therefore
yearly a pair of white gloves, or one halfpenny instead. 40

Within the next twenty years, Sir Walter de Dunstanville granted
to Wombridge Priory the Mill which he had bought of Richard,
Lord of Glenhull ; by which transfer, it should be observed, the
Canons became Tenants of the Mill, paying a nominal rent of one
halfpenny to the Lord of Grindle. 41

Meanwhile, that is about the year 1250 (as far as we can judge
from his attestation of undated deeds), John de Grenhull had
succeeded Richard in the Lordship of Grindle.

At the Assizes of January 1256, this John officiated as a Juror
for the Hundred of Brimstree, and he is found continuously as a
Juror or Witness in records or deeds down to November 1277.

There is a Qu^t-claim of his in the Wombridge Chartulary, which
(being apparently of date October 21, 1270) releases to that house
the rent of one halfpenny, due to him on Grindle Mill. 43

This was clearly in consequence of a contemporary agreement
whereby the Canons had given him a fee-farm grant of the same
Mill at an annual rent of one merk, reserving to themselves the
usual seignoral rights whenever any of John's heirs or suc-
cessors should happen to be in minority — reserving also a power
of distress (in case of the said rent being unpaid) to be levied by
the Bailiff of the Hundred on all the Tenant's goods. 48

Between the years 1277 and 1285, John de Grenhull was
succeeded by Ranulph de Grenhull. The latter occurs in various
documents down to the close of the Century, but under no circum-
stance of particular interest.

William de Hedleg (Hadley), Sir Hugh
Fits Robert (of Bowlas), Sir Odo de
Hodeneth (Hodnet), Sir Madoc de
Sutton, Herbert then Seneschal of
Ideshall, Oliver de Knoll, Badulf de
Stanton, Adam Pollard, Adam Walsh
(Wallensis).

40 Ibidem, No. 1. The witnesses are
Sir John Bunstanyille, Sir Walter de
Hugeforde, Sir Richard de Sanford (of
Brockton Sanford, &c., who died 1249),
the Lord Prior of Wombridge, Sir

Walter de Kembricton, Sir Yvo de
Brocton. The deed passed between 1241
and 1240. This Mill, called in later times
the Forge-Mill, is no longer in existence.

41 Ibidem, Nos. ii and xi.

48 Ibidem, No. ix.

48 Ibidem, No. x. In 27 Hen. VIII
(1535-6), the Prior of Wombridge re-
turned the receipts of his house as
£6. 4*. 10(2. per annum, from Tenements
in Sutton, Brockton, and Grendull ( Valo
Eccles. iii, 194).

Brockton.

This place derives its name from the little brook (bpoc) which,
flowing hither from Madeley, passes on to join the Worfe at Beck-
bury.

A great proportion of the lands which are now associated with
the village of Brockton were, in 1085, involved with Sutton, but
there was also a small and separate Manor which we find thus
noticed in Domesday. — " The same Osbern (Fitz Richard) holds
Broctone (of the Earl) Bruniht who occurs above (i. e. under
Badger) held it (in time of King Edward). Here is i virgate of
land and viii acres. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for i ox-team.
There is i boor with n oxen. Its former value was viii shillings (per
annum); its present is xn pence He (Osbern) found it waste." 1

I think that Osbern Fitz Richard's Domesday Tenant at Badger
had also feoffment in Brockton. At all events that William de
Begesour who, about 1174, sold his interest in Badger, appears to
have retained and transmitted to his heirs a subtenancy in Brockton.
The name will occur again in the latter relation.

As to Osbern Fitz Richard's Seigneury here, that reverted to the
Crown within fifty years after Domesday, and probably at the same
time and for the same causes as have been suggested under Ryton.

The neighbouring Manors of Stockton and Sutton were con-
temporaneously in the King's hands, whereby it came to pass that,
on their redistribution in time of Henry II, the Domesday limits of
each were not strictly observed. Hence I must speak with some
uncertainty of the specific descent of that virgate and eight acres
which are entered in Domesday as " Broctone." .

This land was possibly represented by a tenement of two virgates,
held subsequently under the Crown by petit serjeantry. The im-
mediate tenants bore the name of Russel, and their service was that
of Castle-Guard at Shrawardine.

The earliest tenant of whom I find mention was Robert Russel,
who in time of Henry II, as I suppose, alienated one half of his

1 Domesday, fo. 257, b. 2.

ii. 13

BROCKTON.

serjeantry, viz. one virgate, to Iweyn his brother and Agatha his

sister, reserving to himself an annual rent of 5d. 2

Of this alienation I will speak presently. The next whom I find
in the position of Robert Russell was Geoffrey Russell, who attests
a deed of Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, in the year 1194.

In the fiscal year, ending Michaelmas 1204, King John's fifth
Scutage was levied. It was at the rate of two-and-a-half merks
(£1. 13*. 4d.) on each Knight's Fee; but the peculiarity of this
Scutage was, that it was assessed, not only on Tenants in capite by
Knight's service, but on Tenants by Serjeantry. Thus Geoffrey
Russell appears upon the Roll as chargeable with half-a-merk. 3

The same Geoffrey is found attesting certain Brockton Deeds in
1205, and between that year and 1211.

In June 1211, this Geoffrey was deceased, and William Russell
was the King's Tenant at Brockton. From two Rolls of that date
his obligation is gathered to be " the finding of one serving foot-
soldier with a bow, for ward of the King's Castle of Srawrthin." 4

About 1225, this William Russell granted to Ralph de Sanford,
for his homage and service, and for 20*. then paid, all the land which
said William had in Wunedon ; — rendering therefore 2s. per annum.*

Some time afterwards Henry Ywein granted to Wombridge
Priory an acre of land which he had in Bromcroft in the vill of
Brocton. 6 A contemporary Charter by William Russel shows that
this acre was held under him by Henry Ywein who was in fact his
relation. 7 He confirmed the grant and added a further donation of
his own, viz. three acres on the hill of Habenhull (now The
Avenals), and another acre in Bromcroft. 8

3 Testa de Nevill> to. 275.
8 Rot. Pip. 6 John, Salop.

4 Testa de Fevill, fo. 254, and Liber
Ruber Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvii. Other Bolls,
apparently compiled from less accurate hut
nearly contemporary originals, give the
names of both Gteoftrey and William
Russel as Tenants by Serjeantry, and
describe the tenure of the former as a
hide of land. This I take to be a mere
error of compilation, and do not think
that any single original can have contained
both names. These latter Bolls are to be
found Testa de Nevill, fo. 879, and JAber
Ruber, fo. cxxiiL

5 Charter at Haughton Hall. The wit-
nesses are Sir Hugh de Beckebur, Richard

de Grenhull, William de Beggesouria,
Roger his Son, Henry le Strange, Robert
de Trillewordine, Henry Ywein, Elias
Cocu8.

6 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton^
No. xlvii. Tested by Sir Madoc de Sutton,
Richard de Sontford (son and heir of
Balph), Boger de Begesour, William
Russell, William Cocus.

7 Ibidem, No. mix. Tested by the
first, second, third, and fifth witnesses of
the last j also by Henry Ywein and Elias
Cocus.

8 Ibidem, No. xlix. Tested by Sir
Madoc de Sutton, Richard de Sonford,
Richard Grenhull, Boger de Beggeshour,
Henry Ywein, and William Cocus.

BROCKTON. v 95

Before Michaelmas 1240, this William Russel was dead, and
Thomas, his son and heir, is entered on the Pipe Roll as owing
one merk relief for the lands which he should hold in capite. 9

Thomas Russel underwent sentence of outlawry and forfeiture
within twelve years of his succession. An Inquest of Tenures in
Brimstree Hundred, which appears to have been taken about 1251,
records as follows : —

" Thomas Russel, who held of the King in capite two virgates of
land in Brocton, by service of being in garrison at Montgomery,
with whatever arms he chose for self-defence, slew a man, and his
land was seized into the King's hand. Of the said land, Robert
Russel his ancestor alienated one virgate to Iweyn his (Robert's)
Brother and Agatha his Sister by service of 5d. per annum, and it
(the alienated land) is now worth one merk " per annum. 10

The Brimstree Jurors at the Assizes of January 1256, reported
the previous " indictment, flight, malcredit, and outlawry of Thomas
Russel, and of his accomplices Adam Mestling and Nicholas
Russel of Dunninton ; also that none of the said outlaws had any
chattels." 11

Thomas Russell's land at Brockton continued an Escheat till the
year 1261. It was apparently early in that year that the King
ordered an Inquest to be taken by the Sheriff and Coroners as to
the circumstance of this Tenure.

Of the Jury which sat on this occasion were Ivo de Brocton,
Roger Bagh (Baggesore), Thomas de Brocton, Richard le Oyselur,
Hugh Pym, William Dunnynger, William Fitz Elyas, &c.

They reported that Thomas Russel's land was an Escheat of
the King, who could give it to whom he chose, but that Dionisia,
Thomas's Mother, was still holding one-third thereof in dower. 13

The King seems to have acted immediately on this information.
His writ dated at St. Paul's, London, May 18, 1261, runs as
follows. —

" The King having regard to the long services of Nicholas le
Waleys his Messenger hath granted to said Nicholas for life that
Messuage, &c. in Broghton which Thomas Russel once held in capite

• Hot. Pip. 24 Hen. Ill Salop (Nova
Oblata).

10 Testa de Nevill, fo. 275. The ser-
vices which, while Shrawardine was a
Royal Castle, lay upon many of the King's
Tenants in Shropshire were attorned
before this period to Montgomery. Shra-

wardine was, at the same time, probably
given up to its hereditary Lords, the Fitz-
Alans.

11 Assize Soll 9 memb. 9 recto.

12 Inquis. incerti temporis Hen. Ill,
No. 96.

BROCKTON.

and which is the King's Escheat, by reason of said Thomas being
outlawed for the murder of Thomas Blund of Stoctou, and which
the King can give to whom he will, as he learns by Inquisition
which he has caused to be made by the Sheriff of Salop." The
Grantee is to perform all accustomed services. At his death the
premises shall revert to the Crown. The Escheator citra Trent is
to put the Grantee in possession without delay. 13

At the Assizes of September 1272, the Brimstree Jurors reported
the non-attendance of Nicholas le Messager, also that " he had for
ten years withdrawn from the Hundred-Court all suit for his tenure
in Brocton, whereby the King was damaged 2*. yearly ; also that
the said tenure was a virgate of land in Brockton, for which he
was to find for the King one bow (archer) with a bolt (bosone) for
fifteen days, at Mungomery, in time of war." 14

The Feodary of 1284 exhibits the extent of this tenure, and also
the service due thereon to the Crown, as again changed ; though I
suppose that the Tenant mentioned held under Nicholas le Messager,
and not, as stated, in capite. —

Alexander le Cold is entered as holding half a virgate in the vill
of Brocton in capite, by service of going with the King into Wales
in time of war, with one lance, for a week. 16

At the Assizes of October 1292, a thorough investigation of the
various rights of the Crown in this County brought this Serjeantry
again under notice. 16

The King, by Hugh de Louther (his Attorney), prosecuted
Nicholas le Messager for one virgate in Brocton, which he, the
King, claimed as his right. The Defendant did not appear, and the
Sheriff having been ordered to summon him had not done so, but
certified that said Nicholas was dead. Hugh de Louther denied
this, and affirmed Nicholas to be alive and well (in plena vit&), and
was ready to prove this by Jury. The Sheriff made a similar
appeal ; so an Inquest was ordered thereupon, and a formal precept
issued to the Coroners.

Whatever was the result of this further investigation, I find no

12 Fines, ii, 351. Originalia y i, 17.

14 JPlacita Corona, 66 Hen. Ill, Salop,
m. 22 dorso, 23 recto.

15 Kirbtfa Quest. Alexander le Cold
appears on a local Jury in September
1276; and, for several years after, his
laud in Brockton is a subject of mention

in contemporary Charters of Wombridge
Priory. In most of these his Christian
name is written Tandi or Gandi, — abbre-
viations of "Alexander" which would
seem to hare been then in use.

16 Plocita de quo Warranto, p. 685.

BROCKTON.

later evidence of this Serjeantry constituting an individual Tenure
incapite.

I believe that it was afterwards held by the Burnels of Langley,
in common with other acquisitions in the neighbourhood which
had been secured by their relative, the princely Bishop of Bath and
Wells, who died, holding the Great Seal of England, at the very
time when these Prosecutions were on foot.

We should say something of the descent of that Iwbyn whom we
have seen to become a Feoffee of Robert Russell in the twelfth cen-
tury, and whose heirs were consequently under-tenants of the
successive occupants of this Serjeantry. Henry Fitz Ywein is
found attesting local deeds early in the thirteenth century. As
Henry Ywein he has already been mentioned at a somewhat later
date.

Robert Ouewyn served on a Stockton Inquest in 1248.

Richard Iwen, Iweyn, or Weyn, of Brockton, occurs as a witness
before 1249, as a Juror in 1253, and was living in 1272. From the
latter date till the beginning of the next century another Henry
Iweyn seems to have represented the family ; and in 1316, 1318,
and 1336 we. have Richard Owyn, Heweyn, or Yweyn in a similar
position. On May 1, 1341, Sibil, widow of Richard Owyn, occurs
as holding dower in Brockton. 17

LINLEY FEE IN BROCKTON.

I have already hinted that of several tenures in Brockton it is
difficult to distinguish the one which constituted the Domesday
Manor from others which, having been involved at Domesday, in
Sutton, were afterwards detached therefrom and became inde-
pendent.

A second tenure (of two and a half virgates) shall have notice
here, as possibly representing the Domesday Manor of Broctone.

This, in time of King Henry II, was held in capite by Richard de
Linley. Of him I have spoken under Linley, and shall here say no
more of him than that he appears to have alienated one-and-a-half
virgates of his Serjeantry in Brocton to Sibil de Linley, 18 his rela-

17 Wombridge Chartulary passim, and
Charters at Haughton. I have not given
all the varieties which occur in the spell-
ing of this single name "Owen." The
Anglo-Saxon law-clerks were in no case

very studious of a consistent orthography ;
but the spelling of Welsh proper names
seems to have been a subject of more than
usual caprice.

18 Testa de NeviU* fo. 60. The passage

BROCKTON,

tion doubtless, but not his heir. Sibil in turn bestowed her land
in Brocton on Lilleshall Abbey, as has been before stated. 19

We will presently return to the Lilleshall interest thus created
here ; but now we will follow the descent of those two Coheiresses
who eventually succeeded Philip de Linley in the residuary virgate
at Brockton, as well as in the whole Manor of Linley.

These were the wives, one of William le Forcer, the other (Isolda)
of Wido de Farlow. 20

An Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred taken in 1227*
states that William (it should be Wido) de Fernlawe and William
le Forcir hold a virgate in Brockton by service of finding one
serving foot-soldier at Shewrthin (Shrawardine) for eight days
if necessary ; and that the annual value (of the said virgate)
was 15s. 21

Guy be Fernlawe was Lord of Farlow, and has already occurred
to our notice as attesting a Broseley deed about 1230, and a
Pickthorn Deed about 1241-2. 23 And soon after that he died,
leaving Philip his son and heir, who before the year 1251, calling
himself Philip, son of Wido de Farnlowe, grants to Stephen, son of
William Keede (elsewhere spelt Cude) of Brockton, for his homage
and for 20*. entrance-fee, half a virgate in Brockton which came
hereditarily to him (Philip) from Ysonda his mother :— to hold in
fee at a rent of 7*. 6dJ*

is inaccurate and ungrammatical ; but its
intended meaning is clearly that which I
have assigned to it.

19 Supra, Vol. I, p. 860.

20 Before the Brockton virgate settled
into this succession, i. e. about the year
1211, the following inconsistent and un-
intelligible returns appear to have related
thereto: —

1. William Briware holds by serjeantry
one virgate in Drayton, and he should find
one serving foot-soldier for ward of the
Castle of the Lord King of Srawthin
(Testa de Nevill, p. 55).

2. William Bruere holds by serjeantry
of one serving foot-soldier with a bow, for
ward of Sraworthin (Liber Rub. Scacc.
fo. cxxxvii).

3. William Briwer holds Bramton by
service of finding a serving foot-soldier for
ward. (Testa de Nevill, p. 417).

That the tenure thus alluded to was

in Brockton rather than Bramton or
Drayton will be clear j but who William
Briwere the Tenant was I cannot sur-
mise. He may have been Guardian of the
two Coheiresses, or he may have been the
first husband of one of them, or again he
may have been the heir of Philip de Linley
and Father of them both.

It will not serve to elucidate the diffi-
culty when I state that in 1226, Alice de
Draiton was suing William Cude (whose
family I know to have been Under-tenants
in this Serjeantry) for disseizing her of a
tenement in Brockton. Judgment was
given for the Defendant because the
Plaintiff had never been in seizin of the
premises (Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 108).
A confusion of the names Drayton and
Brockton is not a singular occurrence.

81 Testa de Nevill, fo. 54.

22 Supra, Vol. I, p. 240.

23 WombridgeChartulary, Tit.Broclon,

BROCKTON.

I can say nothing further of this Philip de Farlow than that he
was living in 12{>5, and dead in 1272 ; and that his inheritance
seems to have been divided among Coheiresses, who in the year
1273, were jointly in receipt of 9*. per annum chargeable on Linley,
and 7s. 6d. per annum, the rent of their share of Brockton, as re-
served in the feoffment of Stephen Keede already quoted.

This rent of 7s. 6d. and the Seigneural rights which it implied
were afterwards bought up by Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath
and Wells, who was at the time a ready purchaser of any Shrop-
shire property.

On May 5, 1280, the following Pine was levied at Westminster
between said Robert, Complainant (querentem), and Matilda de
Farlawe, Defendant (impedientem), of 4*. rent in Brockton whereof
was plea. — " Matilda acknowledged the right of Robert thereto as
of her own gift. To hold to Robert and his heirs of John de
Cleton and his heirs for ever; — Rendering a red-rose and capital
services. The Bishop gave a sore hawk. And this concord was
made in presence and by consent of, and under warranty of said
rent, by John de Cleton." But Robert de Doditon and Isolda his
wife put in a claim to said rent, as we learn from an indorsement
on the Fine.

At the same time and place another fine was levied between the
same Plaintiff and John de Cleton and Alice his wife, Defendants,
of Ss.6d. rent in Brockton, whereof was plea of warranty of Charter.
John and Alice acknowledged the Tight of the Bishop as of their
own gift ; — to hold to the Bishop and his heirs at a rent of one
rose and by render of capital services. The Bishop gave a sore hawk. 34

Having now traced one interest in this Tenure to the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, I proceed to show that he acquired another also,
viz. that which was held in 1227 by William lb Forcer.

This William, who has occurred as witness of two Broseley deeds
about 1230, was deceased before Dec. 6, 1242, when Henry his Son
and Heir fined three merks with the King, to have seizin of his
Father's lands, although he (Henry) was yet under age. The King
accepted his fealty, and he was to do his homage on the King's
return into England. The Sheriff of Salop was to take security
for the said three merks, and give Henry full seizin. 86

Ko. xr. Tested by Adam de Doditun,
Yto de Brocton, Roger Beeg (Bagsore),
Richard Beeg, Thomas Russel, Richard
Pym.

94 Pedes Ftnium, 8 Edw. I, Salop.

26 Fines, i, 391. The King was in
Gascony. This writ was expedited by
the Archbishop of York.

100

BROCKTON.

On Nov. 15, 1248, Henry le Forcer having enfeoffed an Under-
Tenant in his half-virgate at Brockton the following Fine was
levied at Salop, viz, " between Henry le Forcer, Plaintiff (petentem) ,
and Henry de Brocton and Sibil his wife, Tenants, of half-a-virgate
in Brocton, whereof was Plea, &c. Henry de Brocton and Sibil
acknowledged the right of the Plaintiff, who conceded the premises,
— to have and to hold to Henry de Brocton and Sibil, and the heirs
of Sibil, rendering therefore to the Plaintiff and his heir 7*. 6d.
annually, and performing accustomed services to the Chief Lord of
the Fee." 28

About the year 1251, an Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree
Hundred seems to give the then state of this Serjeantry. " Henry le
Forcer and Philip de Franlasche (Farlow)hold two-and-a-half virgates
(the original quantity) of the King, in Brocton, by Serjeantry of
finding one man at Montgomery in war, for fifteen days. Out
of this (two-and-a-half virgates) Richard de Linley alienated one-
and-a-half virgates to Sibil de Linley, and it (the alienation) is
worth 20s." (per annum). 27

Besides what I have said, under Linley, of Henry le Forcer,
I find that on March 28, 1256, he and his Brother Roger took one
of the King's Deer. 28 Roger escaping from arrest was outlawed,
but Henry was still in prison when, in February 1262, the
Justices of the Forest visited Shrewsbury. A fine of 20*., for which
Andrew de Wileley and John Tece of Tasley were his Sureties,
seems then to have procured his release.

His attestation of two Charters as a Tenant of Shrewsbury
Abbey at Astley must have passed between this period and^his
death (Oct. 6, 1272). 29

The first Inquest as to his estate reported him to " have held
half-a-virgate of the vill of Brocthon, which a certain free man
(his Feoffee of 1248) then held, by doing service for him (Henry)
at Suarthin, also that the said Henry had sold all his right therein
to Robert Burnell."

A second Inquest, which sat April 16, 1273, purports to be more
correct. It says that he had held " half-a-virgate of the King in
Brocton, of the Barony of Montgomery, by service of finding one
foot-soldier in ward of the Castle there, that he before his death

* Pedes MnUm, 83 Hen. Ill, Salop.

v Testa deNevttl^.GO. Thechangeof
service from Shrawardine to Montgomery
is again observable. (Vide supra, n. 10.)

» JPlacitalbresta, Salop, 46 Hen. Ill,
memb. 4.

* Salop Chartulaiy, Numbers 146,
151.

BROCKTON. 101

(had sold) the said land to Sir Robert Burnel, who has Custody of
the said Barony, by some right, to himself or his heirs * * * ," 2 <>

Though the deceased was thus shown not to have been a Tenant
t» capite, the King's Escheator, seized upon his heir, claiming for
the Crown the right of disposing of him in marriage.

Margery de Harcourt, daughter and (as she is on this occasion
less accurately called) Coheir of William de Harcourt, claimed this
wardship, and petitioned the Crown for the same in 1275. Her
claim arose as having the Seigneury of Ayleston (co. Leicester) . She
alleged that her ancestors always had custody and marriage of the
Heirs of Le Forcer, who were Tenants of that Manor, notwith-
standing that Henry Le Forcer had held other lands of the Honour
of Montgomery and the Priory of Wenlock (she alluded to Brockton
and Linley).

The King's writ, dated 18 July 1275, directed the Sheriff of
Shropshire to inquire into this matter. A Jury met at Brockton
on January 2, 1276, and reported that RicharA de Harcourt,
Margery's Grandfather, had had the marriage of Henry le Forcer,
deceased, the latter having been a Minor at the .death of his Father
William ; that said Richard sold the said marriage to Nicholas le
Forcer, Henry's Uncle; and that the King and his Ancestors,
Lords of the Honour of Montgomery, had never had marriage or
custody of the Forcers. 31

Sir Robert Burnell, above mentioned as purchasing Henry le
Forcer's interest at Brockton, was consecrated Bishop of Bath and
Wells April 7, 1275. We have already seen how in 1280 he was
buying the seigneury (or right to the chief-rent) of the other moiety
of this Serjeantry. His object was a title to the whole rent of 15*.
per annum (7s. 6d. being the reserved rent on each moiety) ; and it
should be remembered that 15s. had been stated in 1227 to be the
value of this virgate to its owners. The Bishop seems either to have
changed the Under-Tenants here, or to have performed the services
due on this Serjeantry by another deputy ; but his transactions at
this period were so numerous and complicated that I cannot do
more than set down what I suppose to relate to Brockton. The
Bishop had a relation, a Nephew I believe, Richard Burnell, to
whom he granted Langley, at first for life, and afterwards in fee. —
In 1284, Richard Burnel is entered as holding one virgate in

» Inquisition, 1 Edw. I, No. 47. This I « Inquisition 4 Edw. I, No. 77.
Record b much defaced. I

II. 14

102

BROCKTON.

Brocton of the King in capite, but his warrant to do so was not
known. 82

The Bishop however still continued seized of the chief-rent of 1 5*.;
for in 1291, Sir Philip Burnel (Nephew and heir expectant of the
Bishop) gave to Wombridge Priory 15*, rent in the vill of Brocton
in exchange for all land and rents which the Priory had at Norton
near Condover. The said exchange was attested by the Bishop
himself, 83 who seems, as regards this estate, to have anticipated the
succession of his heir.

Nevertheless, Richard Burnel continued to hold this land, and to
be reputed the Tenant in capite, though the service due thereon
appears again to have been changed, —

In 1310, when the army of England was under summons to
meet at Tweedmouth on Sept. 19th, Richard Burnel proffered
service of a fourth part of a Knight's Fee to be performed by one
serving man with a barded horse. 8 *

Richard Burnfel of Langley seems to have died in 1313," and to
have been succeeded both at Langley and Brockton by William
Burnel. In 1328, when marriage articles were agreed upon
between Edward (son of this William) and Margaret Lee, William
Burnel enfeoffed the said Edward, &c. " in all his lands in Broc-
tone near Kembrygton, except the Tenement which he held of the
King in capite, and which he might not alienate without license." 36

The virgate-and-half which Richard de Linley had given to
Sibil de Linley out of this Serjeantry was before 1199 granted by
the latter to Lilleshall Abbey.

It would seem that one Agnes de Brocton had some claim to a
rent receivable from the Abbey on this or other land in Brockton.
A deed wherein she calls herself daughter of William makes over
her right, whatever it was, to Ralph de Sanford, 87 who was at this
period (1210-1224) purchasing largely in the neighbourhood.

88 Kirby's Quest. It is obvious that
whoever made this return was ignorant
of the precise circumstances of Richard
Burnet's Tenure, which must have been
under the Bishop. Richard probably occu-
pied the land and performed the military
service due thereon.

88 Wombridge Chartxd&ry, Tit. Brocton,
No. liii. Tested also by Sir Roger Spren-
choee, Sir William de Huggeford, Sir
Ralph Sprenchose, Sir Thomas de Rus-
sell (Rossall).

34 Parliamentary Writs, vol. iv, page
621.

86 Calendar of Inquisitions, vol i, page
253.

86 Blakeway's MSS., quoting Charters
of Sir Edward Smy the, Bart.

87 Charter at Haughton — tested by
Baldwin de Hodnet, Hugh de Beckenburi,
Henry le Strange, William deBaggesoure,
William Russel, Robert Cocus, Robert de
Trillewardin.

SUTTON MADDOCK.

108

By another deed A. (Alan) Abbot of Lylleshull enfeoffs Ralph
de Sanford and his heirs in that half-virgate in Brockton which Alan
Vangi held ; — to hold at an annual rent of 4*. w

I can trace nothing further of this Lilleshall interest in Brockton
except that some later deeds occasionally mention the Abbot's land
as bounding other tenements.

button jfflatftocfc*

This Manor, though then unmarked by the compound name, which
was afterwards employed to distinguish it from other Suttons, is
easily identified in Domesday. That Record tells us thus. —

"The same Gerard holds Sudtone (of the Earl Roger). Earl
Morcar held it. Here are are mi hides geldable. There is
(arable) land (sufficient) for xn ox-teams. In demesne are n
teams and (there are) vi Serfs and xn villains and mi boors with
vn teams ; and a certain Knight has there i team and n Serfs.
In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth xl shillings
(annually) . Its present value is the same." l

I think that Sudtone must have been originally so called with
reference to its position in the Southern quarter of the great
Saxon Parish of Iteshale (now Shiffnal). The two places had
also been manorially associated from the earliest times. Together
with Tong and Donington they had constituted an estate of the
Earls of Mercia.

When Edwin and Morcar, Brothers and joint Tenants of that
Earldom, rebelled against King William in 1071, their outbreak,
as is well known, ended in the death of the former, the captivity,
or rather disappearance of the latter, «ud the distribution of Mercia
as of a conquered province. Thus did Earl Roger de Montgomery
enter Shropshire to rule and to possess.

* Charter ibidem, — tested by Walter
de Uuggeford, Hugh de Becchebur, Philip
de Burwardslcg, Boger de Spepnhose
(Sprouchosc), Veler de Eytnn, Robert de

Mukelestun. This deed passed between
1216 and 1224. It had two Seals attached,
but both are gone.

1 Domesday, fo. 259, a 1.

104

SUTTON HADDOCK.

Among the followers and countrymen of the Norman Lord one
Gerard de Tornai received a share of the spoil. He held at
Domesday , and for at least a season afterwards, eighteen Manors, of
which Sutton was the largest and most valuable. I can say little
more of Gerard de Tornai' s career in Shropshire than that it ter-
minated in a total and absolute forfeiture, and, whereas such
forfeiture must have been very nearly contemporary with the great
western Rebellion of 1088, 1 do not see that we can help associating
the two events. 3

The disinherited Baron had one, or more than one daughter.
She (if only one) was Sibil the wife of Hamo Peverel, whose
influence in Shropshire, already great in time of Earl Hugh
(1093-1098), will have originated in this marriage, and in
the accompanying favour of that seigneural Lord, whether
King or Earl, who dictated the re-disposal of Gerard's forfeited
estates.

The bare mention of this name of Peverel will suggest a throng
of recollections to every one acquainted with the vicissitudes which
befel this County during the first Century after the Norman
Conquest. National Records, Monastic Chartularies, Chronicles
and Legends, all speak of the Peverels ; but the pervading feature
of every account or hint is, that something is kept back which
either was not known or was not to be talked of.

The only specific statement yet advanced, attributes the various
branches of this house to a Saxon Ancestress, who, as we are told,
was first the Concubine of Duke William of Normandy, and then
the wife of Ranulph Peverel of Hatfield (Essex), and who, after
being Mother (by the Duke) of William Peverel of Nottingham,
subsequently gave lawful birth to all the other Peverels who figured
in the time of Henry I. 8

This story, improbable in its simplest form, 4 and with the fewest

* Salop Chartolary, 3o. 296.

8 This account is adopted by Dugdale,
and appears to have been originally
Touched by Robert Glover, some-time
Somerset Herald. Glover's reputation as
a Herald is I believe still high, and in-
dependently of that it may seem pre-
sumptuous to question an authority which
Dugdale accepted. Nevertheless I cannot
help doing so.

4 Its improbability arises in two ways.
It is inconsistent with the general charac-

ter of Duke William. Moreover, this
alleged liaison with a Saxon Lady of rank
can have originated in no earlier circum-
stance than the event of the Duke's visit
to the Court of Edward the Confessor in
1051. However, William Peverel of Not-
tingham, whatever his parentage, must
have been born before that period, for he
was old enough in 1068 to be entrusted
with one of the most responsible offices in
the kingdom, the custody of the Castle and
Province from which he took his name.

SUTTON MADDOCK.

105

adjuncts, has further been embodied with such a variety of
impossible circumstances as to leave its credibility in extreme
jeopardy.

Mystery there certainly is about the whole subject, and the truth
may very possibly be buried with some tale of courtly scandal,
though not of the precise character hitherto pointed out.

Leaving a curious, but perhaps hopeless investigation, we should
here say that Domesday appears to make mention of only two
Peverels, viz. William (of Nottingham) and Ranulph (of Essex), and
that the latter had a small territory in Shropshire held under the
Norman Earl. .

This accident is, I believe, the fact which has mainly induced some
Genealogists to conclude that Banulf was Father of those Shrop-
shire Feverels who attended the Court and enjoyed the favours of
King Henry I. Such a conclusion wants all substantial foundation
and is directly subverted by one chief consideration, viz. that of the
many Lordships enjoyed by Ranulf Peverel in four Domesday
Counties (Shropshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex), not one can be
proved to have descended to those other Peverels of whom I am
now to speak. 5

The latter family consisted of several brothers or half-brothers,
whose parentage is unknown, and whose very number is uncertain.
If they were four, their names were Hamo, William, Pagan, and
Robert, if they were only three, then Pagan and Robert constitute
a single person described in different documents by different
names. 6

* Their estates lay in Shropshire, Not-
tinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire,
Yorkshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridge-
shire, Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Kent,
and Northamptonshire, and they all came
into court-favour before the death of
Ranulph Peverel whose only son and suc-
cessor seems to have been that William
Pererel who was afterwards called of Essex
or of London, to distinguish him from his
Contemporaries William of Nottingham
and William of Bran, or of Dover.

• I shall have hereafter to recur to this
subject of the Peverels. I should perhaps
however state here how tliis doubt about
Pagan and Robert arises. —

Pagan Peverel had a great Fief in Cam-
bridgeshire by grant of Henry I. He was

Founder of Barnwell Priory, and the
Chartulary of that House printed in the
Mowuticon (vol. vi, p. 86) contains a
document of very general truthfulness
and which professes to give account of
his descendants. It makes him Father of
that William Peverel who died in Pales-
tine, and of the four Coheiresses presently
to be mentioned in the text.

That he was succeeded in Cambridge-
shire by the said William Peverel and
then by the said Sisters, there can be no
question % and the only doubt as to the
Barnwell Chronicler's accuracy arises from
his giving a date for Pagan Peverel's death
at least ten years too early. So much for
Pagan Peverel as Father of William.

In a charter of Thorney Abbey (printed

106

SUTTON MADDOCK.

Hamo Peverel, as I have already said, acquired a great position
in Shropshire before the death of Earl Hugh de Montgomery,
and therefore during the reign of William Rufus. His two Bro-
thers, William and Pagan, do not occur to our notice till after the
accession of Henry I.

Hamo Peverel, with whom alone we are now concerned, acquired
his succession to Gerard de Tornai under a title obviously ambi-
guous from the very first. He married the heiress or co-heiress of an
escheated Barony, but such a marriage could have brought nothing
to Hamo Peverel except by special favour of the Suzerain or
Suzerains under whom Gerard de Tornai had held. Hence arose,
as I conceive, two distinct and afterwards conflicting principles as
to this succession. Hamo Peverel, and his wife Sibil, spoke of
and treated this Fief as their inheritance, but yet transmitted it in
such a mode as is quite irreconcilable with any known principle of
hereditary descent.

With similar inconsistency Henry II once addressed the heirs of
Hamo Peverel as if they were also heirs of Gerard de Tornai, and
yet on all other occasions seems to have ignored and gradually to
have abolished any such pretensions. He in short controlled the
Fief of Gerard de Tornai as a simple escheat and as subject to
every recurrent interference of himself as the immediate Seigneur.

But to return to our proper subject, — Hamo Peverel, first con-
spicuous in the Palatine Court of Earl Hugh de Montgomery, and
afterwards enjoying the favour of King Henry I, undoubtedly held
Sutton during the whole of that Monarch's reign. After Henry Fs
death and during the short interval of his own survivorship Hamo
Peverel made to Salop Abbey that grant of the " fishery and passage
of Sutton" which has already been alluded to. 7

In the year 1138, Hamo Peverel was dead, and two youths whom
he had apparently destined as his heirs, while living, occur to our
notice, partly as dealing jointly with his and Gerard de Tornai's
estates, but more prominently as linked together in the cause of the
daughter of Henry I. 8

in the Monasticon vol. ii, 601, viii)
this identical William Peverel (the Cru-
sader) mentions his Father's Christian
name as having been Robert.

Dugdale has adopted both statements
in different parts of his Baronage without
adverting to their apparent inconsistency.

7 Supra, Vol. I, p. 44.

8 It is hardly possible to reconcile the
anomalies which are again presented at
this stage of the history of the Peverels.
Though Hamo Peverel appointed William
Peverel the younger and Walcheline Ma-
minoht his heirs, we have not a hint as to
his relationship with the latter. More-
over Hamo Peverel had a daughter, and

SUTTON MADPOCK.

107

The conduct of William Pevcrel of Dover and Walcheline
Maminoht during the usurpation of Stephen associates their names
with a great national struggle, rather than with their territorial
interests in Shropshire. The former perished in the Crusade of
1147, leaving four sisters his Co-heirs.

On the Accession of Henry II, Walcheline Maminoht was sur-
viving, but neither he nor the four Sisters of William Peverel
succeeded in establishing any joint and general claim on the fief of
Gerard de Tornai. With Sutton in particular they had no further
concern, and we have henceforth to treat of this Manor in a new
and changed relation.

My supposition is, that during the reign of Henry I, and while
the Peverels were actively serving that Monarch in Shropshire and
the Marches, a policy was first adopted which had for its object the
disintegration of the national unity of North Wales. English
lands . and English marriages were bestowed on any native Chief
who might be open to such bribes and worth the bribing. Thus,
I conceive, that is either by affinity or interest, was Jorwerth Goch
(the " Red Edward " of Border traditions) first associated with the
English cause and with the Peverels, for I can look upon his claims
on the Fief of Gerard de Tornai only as having originated while
Hamo Peverel was seized of that Honour.

I understand him to have been a younger Son of Meredytb ap
Blethyn ap Convyn, the last Prince who held the Kingdom of Old

that daughter did not die issueless. So
far from this daughter (Seburga) having
been Hamo Peverel' s heir, she and her
descendants were only Tenants of his col-
lateral heirs, and so far from the same
Seburga being heir of Sibil de Tornai, that
which she and her descendants thus held
was no part of Tornai'B Fief. Seburga
therefore was not Hamo PevereFs daugh-
ter bj his wife Sibil nor by any other
wife. She must in short have been ille-
gitimate.

As to Walcheline Maminoht he would
appear to have been more nearly related
to William Peverel of Dover, the elder,
than to Hamo, — a thing very possible i£
as I believe, the two latter were not
Brothers of the whole blood.

Nor is the statement to be passed in
silence which says that this elder William
Peverel of Borer married another Coheir

of Gerard de Tornai. Such a supposition
appears at first to offer an elucidation, but
still we find this William and Hamo dying
without lawful issue themselves and trans-
mitting estates not to any alleged heirs of
their respective wives but to their own
collateral heirs. If such disposal were by
permission or under direction of the Crown
we may indeed thus account for the here-
ditary principle having been afterwards
set aside by the same authority.

Thus by a series of hypotheses we esta-
blish something of a consistent theory,
but I have little faith in theories thus
established. I have often found a single
guess in similar subject-matter to prove
erroneous. I have here hazarded two or
three. My hope is that this statement of
uncertainties may bring to light some
document available for a future and neces-
sary recurrence of the question.

108

SUTTON MADDOCK.

Powis in its integrity. On Meredyth's deaths 113$ Madoc and
Gruffyth, his two elder sons, became respectively Princes of Lower
and Higher Powis. Jorwerth, his younger Son, had Mochnant is
Rayader, but rather as a dependency of his Brother Madoc's Kef
than as a distinct Principality. Madoc was a firm ally of King
'Henry II, who had not been three years on the throne when
Gerverd Coch (as he is written on the Pipe-Roll) appears to have
made and sustained a legal claim to a great part of the escheated
Honour of Gerard de Tornai. —

William Pitz Alan, then Sheriff of Shropshire, rendered account
at Michaelmas 1157, of a sum of £7. 6s. 44., being the current
years ferm of the land of Gerard de Tornai. Of this sum he had
paid £3. 6*. into the King's Treasury ; the balance £4. Os. 3d. he
had handed over to Gerverd Coch by (order or award of) the Chan-
cellor and the Earl of Leicester. At the same time he charges
£2. 7s. for livery of the King's Archers in the Army, and by order
of the King had made presents of £8. 10s. to Maddoch and £2. to
Gervase (Gervetto).

These entries on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll will become very in-
telligible when collated with contemporary Chronicles. —

I assume that the order by the Chancellor (Becket) and the Earl
of Leicester (then Chief Justice of England) implies a previous
judicial decision, for had the gift to Gervase Goch been merely one
of Grace it would have been authorised by writ of the King him-
self. However, it is probable that the claims of Gervase on Gerard
de Tornai's Fief were acknowledged not simply on account of their
justice but from ulterior political motives. It was in the summer
of the year 1157, that Henry II undertook his first expedition against
North Wales. Madoc, Prince of Powis, commanded the fleet which
was destined to co-operate with the King's Army along the
Northern coast of the Country, and the Welsh Chronicler tells us
incidentally that in this same year " Jorwerth Goch ap Meredith
got the Castle of Yale and burnt it." 9 We may hence infer the
causes which placed Madoc and Gervase (his Brother) on the Shrop-
shire Pipe Roll.

• Powell, sub anno. Yale was part of
the territory of Madoc, Henry's Ally; but
the Castle here alluded to was, as we
happen to know by accident, built by
Owen Gtwyneth in 1149; and Owen
Gwyneth, Prince of North Wales, being

I suppose still in possession was, in 1157,
the object of the King's hostility. This
undesigned agreement of scattered facts
does much to establish the veracity of the
Welsh Chronicler from whom Dr. Powell
took his statements.

SUTTON MADDOCK. 109

The lands which Gervase Goch acquired in Tornai's Fief seem to
have been in Sutton, Brockton, and Ellardine. What he had in
Sutton was however not quite identical with the Domesday Manor,
a circumstance which has already been accounted for. He further
received the Manor of Bowton (near High Ercall) from Henry II,
which had not been Gerard de Tornai's at Domesday, though pos-
sibly Hamo Peverel had since held it.

These lands became of course a Tenure in capite, and the service
by which the Tenant was to hold them is not the least remarkable
among the Serjeantries of that period. " The Lord of Sutton, &c.
was to be the King's Interpreter (Latimarius) between England
and Wales." 10 The further history of Gervase Goch and his suc-
cessors will afford some curious indications of their performing
this and cognate services.

In 1160, the Sheriff of Shropshire charges his account with
several items of {expense which he had incurred in the fortification
of Border Castles and in subsidizing the native Chieftains of Wales.
Amongst others he had paid to " Gerverd Cok " a sum of 10$.

King Henry's Welsh campaign of 1165 was a failure, which the
pressure of his affairs elsewhere allowed him no personal opportunity
of retrieving. The conquest of Wales, though a favorite project,
might, as he deemed, he accomplished by trusty agents and a
specific policy. This policy, at times actively and openly aggressive,
was much more uniformly characterized by its elements of watchful
intrigue or lavish bribery. In the Autumn of 1166, the King being
then in Normandy, two of his most able Lieutenants, Geoffrey de
Mandeville, Earl of Essex, and Richard de Luci, were at Chester.
Their object was hostile to Wales, but nothing more definite has
transpired than that the Earl was seized with sudden sickness and
died. In that same year two Welsh Princes had united in an
attack on one who was their fellow-countryman and relation, but
whose connection with the English King was the probable cause of
their animosity. "Jorwerth Goch/' says the Chronicler, was
"spoiled of his lands in Powys, by Owen Cyvelioc, the son of
Gruffyth ap Meredyth, Lord of Powys, and by Owen Vachan, second

10 The word Zaiimari** (whence the | the word Romance to any imaginary tale,

is a result of the poetical narratives or
Minstrelsy of a former age having chanced
to be embodied in a base Latin Dialect
called the Lingua Romano. (See Wright's
History of Ludlow, p. 64, note.)

proper-name " Latimer") was first applied
to one who understood Latin. Then it
came to signify one who had acquired a
knowledge of any other than his native
language. So the modern application of

ii. 15

110

8UTTON MADDOCK.

sonne to Madoc ap Meredyth : which lands they divided betwixt
them, so that Owen Cyvelioc had Mochnant above Rayader, and
Owen Vachan Mochnant beneath Rayader." 11

The accompanying genealogy will show the relationship of these
parties. The two Princes were Gervase's Nephews, sons of his elder
Brethren, the Coparcners of Powis-land.

The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of this year supplies a further item of
the King's dealings with his Latimarius. Earl Geoffrey and Richard
de Lucy had ordered the Sheriff to purchase for the King's use
fifteen horses from the stud of Gerverd Chok. The cost
(£14. 16s. 8tf.) had been paid to the said Gervase, and the horses
had been sent, I suppose over sea, to the King ; for Roger Mussun
(of whom we shall hear again) had received 20*. for taking them
somewhither.

At Michaelmas 1167, Gervase's Manor of Sutton (Sutton Ger-
verdi Cok) had been amerced one merk by the Justiciar of the
Forest, but before the following Michaelmas the King, still beyond
sea, had transmitted his Writ, ordering the debt to be cancelled in
favour of Gervase himself.

At the latter period (Michaelmas 1168), William de Beau-
champ, Sheriff of Worcestershire, obeying an order of Riqjiard de
Lucy, had delivered forty horse-loads of corn to " Yerverd Coch,"
wherewith to victual the Castle of Chirk.

At this precise period Gervase Goch was taken still more openly
and completely into the King of England's service. In respect of
his past sacrifices, or in prospect of his future usefulness, the
enormous salary of £91. per annum was appointed for his main-
tenance; 13 and this he regularly received for the years ending
Michaelmas 1169 and Michaelmas 1170, and for forty-seven weeks
of the year ending Michaelmas 1171.

The cause of his salary being discontinued does not appear, but
at this period a pacification was effected between the King of
England and Rese Prince of South Wales ; — and three years later

u Powell, p. 163, tub anno 1166.

19 This salary was 5*. per diem, i. e. sixty
times as much as the pay of a common
soldier. It may be computed as equal to
about £4500 of modern currency. At
Michaelmas 1170, William the Clerk of
Geoffery de Vere, accounting for his de-
ceased Employer as Fermor of "The

Honor of the Constable," charges 40*.
for forty horse-loads of corn given to
Gervard Coch and Boger de Powis. (Rot.
Pip. 16 Hen. II.)

The Pipe-Bolls also supply those other
statements in the text of which I have not
given specific authority.

SUTTON HADDOCK.

Ill

.83

•8* $Sjs

WOO'g

If—

CO "

«■

§ 8*
■S'SS

112

SUTTON HADDOCK.

David, Prince of North Wales, became not only the Ally, but the
Brother-in-law of Henry II.

Possibly however, the death of Gervase Goch rather than the
cessation of his diplomatic functions, was the cause of his disappear-
ance at this crisis. I hear nothing further of him, and find little
more than the name of his eldest son and successor at Sutton. —

About the year 1 186-7, this Madoc, calling himself son of Gervase
Ghoc, granted to Wombridge Priory the Advowson of his Church
of Sutton as far it belonged to him. 13 He willed also that his body,
wherever he might chance to die, might be buried at that Monastery ;
and he promised an annual payment of 2s. during his life in main-
tenance of the Fraternity of Saint Leonard, his Patron. 14

In 1187, this County was visited by the Justices of the Forest.
Among amercements imposed by them, one of two merks for some
default is entered against Madoch, son of Jetun de Sutton; and this
debt, though it remained on the Rolls of eight consecutive years,
does not appear to have been ever liquidated. 16

Before the year 1194, Madoc, son of Gervase Goch, will have
deceased without issue, leaving his Brother Griffith his heir. In
or shortly before that year, the latter, calling himself Griffin, son of
Gervase Goch, confirms the Charter which his Brother Madoc had
given to Wombridge Priory " about the Church of Sutton." For his
part, he granted to the same house an annuity of 12d., to be
chargeable on land held by Fulco the Clerk. He also "would
wish by all means to be buried at Wombridge with his aforesaid
Brethren the Canons, if he should happen to die in England." 1 *

13 Alluding apparently to a contempo-
rary grant by King Henry II, which treats
the Advowson as the exclusive right of
the Crown. (Wombridge Chartulary, TU,
JBrocton, No. lxixxvij.)

14 "Ad fraternitatem Domini mei Sancti
Leonardi manu-tenendam." Wombridge
Priory was dedicated to St. Leonard.
The witnesses of this Charter are, Richard,
Archdeacon of Salop; Master Robert,
Dean of the same; Master Walter de
Dunstanyille, Clerk; Robert Dean of
Dreiton, William de Ercalew; Bernard,
Nicholas, and William, Priests of Ruton,
Albriton, and Dalilea (Dawley) ; Pagan de
Hadley with * * * and Richard his
nephews, Peter de Heiton (Eyton), and
Radulf de Horliton (Orleton), and Master

Richard of Ydeshall (Idsall). (Wom-
bridge Chartulary, TU. Brocton, No.
lxxxv.)

u Rot. Pip. 33 Hen. II to 6 Ric. I,
Salop.

18 Wombridge Chartulary, Ibidem, No.
IxxxtL The witnesses are, Walter de
Dunstanville and his Knights; Peter
Pitz Thoret and his Sons, Philip and
Bartholomew; Reginald de Davull and
Faremus (Pharamus) de Traci; William
de Hadley and Hamo his Brother ; Geof-
frey Russel; William de Beggesour;
Henry Ruffu* de Wrocwaryni; Wurgena,
Cadugane (both Welsh names); and Helias
(probably Helias Cocus, of whom here-
after). The first witness died about
Michaelmas 1194, and the Grantor can

SUTTON HADDOCK. 118

Soon after the return of King Richard from captivity (March
1194), Griffin, son of Jereverth, appears on the Pipe-Boll as fining
for his lands, — in succession, as I presume, to his Brother. The
sum of 40 merks was thus paid by him in 1195 and 1196.

In the former year died Ralph le Strange, Baron of Knockyn,
Alveley, anc[ Weston, in the prime of his life, and leaving a fair
inheritance to be divided amongst three Sisters, his Coheirs.

One of these, Matilda, became before Michaelmas 1196, the wife
of Griffin de Sutton, who then appears, with the husbands of the
other Coheiresses, as fining 200 merks for seizin of the said lands. 17

A fine of this amount indicates a succession to no mean estate,
and Griffin de Sutton's influence in Shropshire was proportionably
extended. Some litigation, in which the Coparcners of Ralph le
Strange's Barony came to be involved, shall be reserved till we
reach the localities concerned. Here we should briefly mention
that the three Coheiresses concurred with their husbands in sur-
rendering Knockyn to their Cousin, John le Strange of Nesse and
Cheswardine, who claimed it as his right. Some equivalent was
however given in each case. Thus Griffin, son of Gervase Gohk,
and Matilda his wife, obtained John le Strange's feoffment in the
whole vills of Dovaneston (Dovaston), and of Kineverdeston
(Kinaston), in lieu of their third of Knockyn. 18

In Easter Term 1200, Griffin, son of Selverd Coc (as his name is
written), happened to be under summons to appear in the Law-
courts at Westminster. The suit then pending had nothing to do
with Sutton, but the reason of his non-appearance is curiously illus-
trative of the tenure by which he held that Manor. A King's writ
had been handed into Court which vouched that Griffin could not
attend there on the proper day " by reason of his service." 19

not hare succeeded to Sutton long before.
These two facts give the date of the
Deed.

V Sot. Pip. 8 Rich. I, Salop.

w Fines, 9 Rich. I, Salop. The general
account is that the Shropshire Kynastons
are descended from Griffin, son of Gervase
Goch, and took name from the very vill
of Kinaston which he thus acquired. All
this is, I believe, perfectly true, but the
details which have hitherto accompanied
this statement are so inaccurate as to run
the risk of bringing discredit upon the
whole story. John le Strange's original
grant of Kinaston and Dovaston expressly

limits the succession to the heirs of Griffin,
by his wife Matilda, with remainder (in
default of such heirs) to the Grantor and
his heirs.

The Heralds and Genealogists however
give us a Pedigree of Kynaston in which
no mention whatever is made of Matilda,
wife of Griffin. They assign to Griffin
another wife, it is true, and issue by the
same. It is however clear that even if
he was twice married, he had issue only
by one wife, viz. Matilda le Strange, and
that, through her, he and his descendants
became possessed of Kinaston.

19 Rot Curia Rsffi*, ii, 185.

114

SUTTON MADDOCK.

Griffin de Sutton was rateable to Aids and Scutages in respect of
his wife's inheritance, his own tenure by Serjeantry not being
ordinarily liable to those imposts. It may be doubted however
whether, for some of the Scutages of King John, he was not
assessed on both accounts. On the fourth Scutage, for instance,
which was levied in the year 1203, at the rate of 2 merks on each
Knight's-Fee, Griffin, son of Yerverd, is charged £5. (7£ merks)
on his Serjeantry. In the year 1204, King John's fifth Scutage
was assessed at the rate of 2\ merks. Here again Griffin de Sutton
was chaged £5. in respect of a Knight's Fee, whilst his share of Le
Strange's inheritance can at no time have exceeded half-a-fee.

In 1205, Griffin Goch fined, or made composition in respect of
King John's sixth Scutage; and in 1206, when the seventh Scutage
was levied at the rate of £1. (1£ merks) per Fee, Griffin Goch paid
4 merks thereon. 80 I do not find him or his Son assessed to
more than one subsequent Scutage, in respect of their tenure at
Sutton.

A return of the year 1211 gives the first formal statement as to
Griffin de Sutton's Serjeantry. He holds, says the Record, Ruelton
(Rowton), Ellewr'thin (Ellerdine), Sutton, and Brocton, of the gift
of King Henry II, by Service of being Latimarius between England
and Wales. 21

On January 24, 1221, the King certifies the Sheriff of Salop that
Maddoc, son and heir of Griffin de Suttun, deceased, has done
homage and fealty. The Sheriff is to take security from said Maddoc
for 100*., his relief for one Knight's Fee which he holds in capite
in Suttun, and give him full and immediate seizin thereof. ss

Griffin de Sutton, thus dying, left his widow Matilda surviving,
and other issue besides Madoc. His sons Griffin and Hoel are
however the only ones of his younger children whom we need
mention here.

Something should be said of the successive grants of Griffin de
Sutton to Wombridge Priory. His confirmation of 1194 has
already been cited. Within ten years of that time, calling himself
Griffin, son of Jareford Goch, he grants to the same Canons, for the

90 Rot. Pip. 5, 6, 7 & 8 John, Salop.
The feudal Tenants of the Crown in King
John's reign do not appear to have had
the option of excusing their personal ser-
vice by a money payment according to the
rate of the current Scutage. They had

specially to compound for non-attend-
ance. Hence the high rates per fee at
which we find many of them to have been
assessed.

31 Testa de Nevill, p. 56.

8 Rot. H*. 6 Hen. Ill, niemb. 8.

SUTTON MADDOCK.

115

souls' health of himself, of M. le Strange his wife, and of his heirs
and ancestors, all his land and wood of Berdelei in his Manor of
Sutton, with all the vestures and appurtenances thereof, and free
liberty to make assart therein or otherwise dispose thereof to their
advantage. 83 He certifies that the Canons, having regard to his
affection for their house, and in acknowledgment of the favour
which he had shown them, had given him a dapple (ferrandum)
Destrier and a black Palfrey. 84 %

By another and, as I think, later deed, he grants to the Priory
a rent of twenty-four cocks and hens which Thomas paid him for
an assart in Sutton. 86

By a still later deed, he grants to the Priory the Curtilage in
Sutton which Sibil and Emma, daughters of Fulcoius (Fulco the
Clerk of his former Charter), held, and of which he had already
given 12tf. rent to the Canons. He also gives 12rf. rent (chargeable
on the land of Robert Cocus in Brocton) in exchange for that
assart on the hill of Severn which had been Thomas Pistor's, and
from which the Canons were already in receipt of a rent of twenty-
four cocks and hens. 86

Another deed of this Griffin shall be cited when I come to speak
of the many Feoffments or alienations which he made in his
tenure.

His Widow, Matilda le Strange, survived him twenty-two years.

At the Assizes of November 1221, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred
reported her to be in the King's gift and not as yet bestowed in mar-
riage. Her land of inheritance in that Hundred (viz. at Alveley)
was worth £4. per annum; her dower (which must have been in Sutton

* This is the grant described in an
Inquest of 1251 as an "alienation of six
acres of wood worth 2*. per annum by
Griffin de Sutton to the Prior of Wom-
bridge." (Testa de Nevill, fo. 274.)

94 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton
et Snttone Madoke, No. lxxxvij. — Wit-
nesses : Hugh and Richard Chaplains of
8utton, Walter de Dunstanville Parson
of the Church of Ydeshal, Warin de
Bnrwardesleg, Philip de Linleg, Richard
de Ruiton, Robert de Sutton, Roger Cor-
bet, William de Hedleg, Bartholomew
Fitz Peter, and Walter his Brother, Walter
de Godemoneston (probably Dodemones-
ton), Philip de YdeshallfHelyas Cocus, &c.

* Ibidem, No. lxxxir. — Witnesses: Hugh
Chaplain of Brocton, and Richard his
Brother (probably identical with the two
first witnesses of the last deed) ; Robert
de Sutton; Nicholas the Chaplain, his
Brother ; John Chaplain • • • • •
Hugh de Bekebur, Walter de Hugefort,
Geoffrey Griffin.

* Ibidem, No. xxxy. — Witnesses: Hugh
de Bekkebur, Walter de Stirchleg, Ralph
de Sontford, Henry Le Strange, William
Russel. This deed involyes some un-
intelligible condition, a part of which
mentions the Prior presenting the
Grantor with a eextary of wine at Wom-
bridge.

116

8UTTON MADDOCK.

and Brockton) was worth £2. The Bradford Jurors reported her
lands in their Hundred to be worth £10. per annum. 37 This must
have included her share of Weston-under-Red-Castle and probably
her dower in Row ton and Ellardine. I do not find any account of her
second marriage. She died shortly before May 4, 1242, when the
King received the homage of Maddok de Sutton, son and heir of
Matilda le Strange, for all lands which she had held in capite in
Alvithele and Weston. The relief payable by Maddok was to be
three merks. 28

Some previous circumstances in the life of this Madoc require
notice. It was from him I imagine, rather than his Uncle, that this
Manor of Sutton acquired its distinctive name of Sutton Maddock.
He was possessed of it more than forty years, and if his importance
may be measured by the frequent mention of his name he was a
chief among the Knightly personages who constituted the Court of
the County.

Soon after his succession, Madoc, son of Griffin, and Duce his wife
are found suing Irabert, Prior of Wenlock,for disseizing them of their
free tenement in Dallyle (probably Dawley). The case was heard
by the King himself when, in August 1226, he visited Shrewsbury.
The Prior was found to have disseized the Plaintiffs of a quarter-of-
an-acre of moor-land. 29 —

The litigation did not end here. In Michaelmas Term 1228,
the Prior of Wenlock was prosecuting a suit at Westminster
against Maddoch, son of Griffin, and Cecilia his wife, Tenants of
12 acres of wood in Sutton and 6 acres of land in Daghele. But
the King had issued mandate to his Justices in banco, that the case
should be postponed till Madoc should be released from prison, he
having been arrested by Lewellyn, Prince of North Wales. 80 This
suit was still on foot in Easter Term 1229, when Cecilia names
her husband (now 1 suppose at large) as her Attorney therein, re-
moving at the same time Wymanus de Karleton her former
Attorney. 81 I find not how it ended, but it has already supplied us

97 Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 8.

28 Rot. Fin. 26 Hen. Ill, memb. 3.

9 Placita coram Rege, 10 Hen. Ill,
memb. 4.

n Placita apud Werim. Michaelmas
Term, 12 Hen. Ill, memb. 1.

51 Ibidem, Easter Term, 13 Hen. Ill,
memb. 1, 2. 1 wish to mark for a future
object this apparent instance of the same
Lady being described under two Christian-

names. The names Dulcia (abbreviated
" Duce'*) and Cecilia have no meaning in
common. They were not therefore con-
vertible, as some names were,\ui respect
of their signification. I have xnet with
many a genealogical problem, which can-
not be solved on any other hypothesis
than this, viz. that females were occa-
sionally known by two distinct Christian-
names.

SUTTON MAPDOCK.

117

with an interesting illustration as to the treatment which the
King's Latimarius might suffer in discharge of his office.

In Michaelmas Term 1242, Madoc de Sutton appears with twenty-
two others as impleaded in the Courts at Westminster by John de la
Lawe for robbery and breach of the King's Peace. The Defendants
had repeatedly failed to appear, so the Sheriff was ordered to have
them bodily in Court on the Octaves of St. Martin. 88

On that day (Nov. 18), the Sheriff had done nothing. He was
ordered to distrain them to appear in Hilary Term following. 83
Ere that time the matter was compounded, and Madok de Sutton
acknowledged, in Court, that he owed 10 merks to John de la
Lawe " for a fine in a certain appeal." u

At Michaelmas 1247, Madoc de Sutton had been amerced one
merk for some default. 85 This perhaps arose thus, —

In 1248, certain persons, who had been assessable to the auxilium
levied in 1235 and 1236 for the marriage of Isabella the King's
Sister, and had escaped payment, appear to have been put in charge
as Defaulters. Among them Madoc de Sutton pays 2 merks, the
sum chargeable on a Knight's Fee. 86

In 1250, when Geoffrey de Langiey assessed various persons in
this County for lands which they had assarted without license,
Madoc de Sutton was put in charge for some land thus reclaimed
in Sutton. 87

Madoc de Sutton was returned in 1253-4, as one of eleven per-
sons in the Counties of Salop and Stafford, who being of 'less than
Baronial degree were yet possessed of lands to the extent of £20.
annual value. 88

In 1 256, Madoc de Sutton formed the design of alienating his
interest at Sutton and Brockton to Wombridge Priory. His in-

■ JPlacita apud Wertm. 26 Hen. Ill,
memb. 11. Among the Defendants were,
Koger Bussel, Henry le Strange, Thelric
the Proroflt, Richard de la Broke, Henry
Fits Ayice, and other names connected
with Sutton, Brockton, Bridgnorth, and
its neighbourhood.

a Ibidem, memb. 29 dorso. Thelric
the FroTOst is here written Terricus.
We have, I think, met with him before
as Terricus Fitx Reginald PrOTOst of
Brag. (Supra, Vol I, p. 814).

* Ibidem, 27 Hen. Ill, Hilary Term,
memb. 11 dorso. Madoc's Sureties for

II.

payment were Odo de Hodenet and Lucas
de Torpell.

85 Mot. Pip. 81 Hen. Ill, Salop. On
the same Boll Madoc son of Griffin stands
excused a sum of ten merks which had
been lent him by the King. Unless he
were identical with Madoc de Sutton I
am at a loss to say who he was.

M Mot. Pip. 32 Hen. Ill, Salop.

* Mot. Pip. 88 Hen. Ill, Salop, when
three years of rent are charged.

98 Dukes' Introduction, p. vii, where
however the return is dated by mistake
27 Hen. Ill (1242-8).

118 SUTTON MADPOCK.

ducement I imagine to have been a pecuniary consideration rather
than a religious impulse. The Crown however interfered, threaten-
ing forfeiture of the whole if Madoc did more than grant a lease
thereof to the Priory for a term of three years. 89 This alternative
seems to have been adopted, for on August 7, the King being at
Worcester, ratifies by Letters Patent the Concession which Madoc
had made of the Manor of Sutton with the rents and escheats of
Brocton and Hedinton (Harrington), — to hold to the Prior and
Convent of Wombrig for three years. °

I doubt not that at the expiration of this term/ Madoc was
repossessed of the Manor, for I not only find Sir Madoc de Sutton
standing as first witness to a charter of Wombridge which passed
about Easter 1261, 41 but in February 1262, he appears on a list of
the ' Regarders of the Forests of Wombridge, Mount Gilbert,
and Haughmond. Moreover he eventually succeeded in alienat-
ing this Manor as well as Bowton and Ellardine to John le
Strange, third Baron of Nesse and Cheswardine, who died early
in 1269.

This sale, as I suppose it to have been, was clearly with sanc-
tion of the Crown, but the tenure by which Sutton was held was
altered. The Lord thereof was no longer the King's Latimarius,
though at first his office was of a cognate kind. Of this however
presently, for we have not yet done with Sir Madoc de Sutton.
He seems to have left nothing of his possessions in East Shrop-
shire to his heirs or to his issue, if we except his share of
Alveley, which he gave in frank marriage to his daughter Isabel,
wife of Henry de Morf. His end is a mystery. At the time
when he sold Sutton he must have been an old man, and it was
a period when the conflicts between the English and Welsh were
incessant. —

Something more definite may perhaps be found regarding him
and his succession when we come to investigate the history of the
Border. I will enumerate here some charters which passed in his
name whilst Lord of Sutton. —

As Madoc son of Griffin de Sutton he enfeoffs Radulph de San-
ford in an acre of land in the fields of Brocton, viz. that which
Henry le Strange held in the Hemme. He also releases to said
Radulf all right in the Moor of Kerswalle. Radulf at the same time

» 2&>*. Pat. 40 Hen. DDL
40 Ibidem, *& die.

41 Wombridge Chartulary , 2^. C7p«a^m,
Ho. clxxv.

8UTTQN MA01>OCK.

119

concedes to Madoc a power to enclose part of said Madoc's wood
of Sutthon Haye. 4 *

As Madoc de Sutton he grants to Simon de London, Clerk, all
his right in, together with a rent of 2*. issuing from, a virgate in
Brocton, formerly held by Elyas Cocus. 43

But this grant will have been surrendered by the Grantee, for, by
a later deed, —

Madoc Lord of Sutton grants the 2s. rent, which Elyas Cocus
osed to pay on a virgate, to Wombridge Priory. 44

Madoc Lord of Sutton grants to the same Priory 2s. which
Adam Atte Tuneshende (Townsend) used to pay him for a virgate
in the vill of Brocton. 46

He also confirms to the same, several grants of Madoc and
Griffin sons of Gervase Goch, before recited, as well as the grant of
William Cocus hereafter to be particularized. 46

He confirms the grant of Berdelay-wood made by Griffin son of
Yareford Goch to the same Priory. 47

He moreover. grants to the same his Mill of Sutton, with suit of
his men in the whole Manor of Sutton, and license to take timber,
under view of the Forester, throughout his wood of Sutton, and to
dig turf for repairs of the said Mill. 48

As Sir Madoc de Sutton he grants to John, Clerk of Brocton,
common right in his wood for 20 hogs and a boar, without
pannage (payment per head), John paying half-a-merk down, and
an annual rent of id. 49

* Charter at Haughton Hall.— Wit-
nesses: Sir Walter deHugheford, Thomas
Corbet,Richard Walensis,Henry le Strange,
Bobert de Trilleworthin, William de Bag-
gesoor, Helyas Cocus, William FitzSeman.
The deed passed between 1225 and 1235.
The Seal, of white wax, is broken, but the
aocompanjing lithograph re-unites the
fragments.

* Wombridge Chartulary, TU. Brocton
and 8uUone Madoke, No. xxrij. — Wit-
nesses : Peter de Neuton, William de Er-
calew, Thomas de Constentin, Knights,
Master Thomas de CodshalL

44 Ibidem, No. Ixxxj. — Witnesses : Sir
Walter de Dunestanrill, Sir Walter de
Huggeford, Walter de Kembricton, Philip
de Pres, Philip de Beckebur, John de
Baton, Ralph Brocton (read " Britton ")
Clerk.

41 Ibidem, No. lxxx. — Witnesses: Sir
Walter de Dunstanvili, Walter de Hugge-
ford, Odo de Hodenet, Roger Corbet,
Symon de London, Roger de Pyweston
(Piyelesdon), Walter de Kembrington,
Herbert de Ydeshall. This deed passed
between 1247 and 1256.

48 Ibidem, No. lzxxiij. — Witnesses : Sir
Walter de Dunstanvili, Sir Walter de
Huggeford, Walter de Kembriton, Philip
de Pres, Philip de Bekebur, John de
Ruton, Ralph Britton Clerk.

47 Ibidem, No. lxxxviij. — Same witnesses
excluding the last.

48 Ibidem, No. lxxxx. — Same witnesses
adding Ralph de Ruton (Britton) Clerk.

49 Ibidem. No. xiij. — Witnesses : Sir
Nicholas Vicar of Sutton, Ivo de Brocton,
Roger Bege (i. e. Begesour), Thomas de

I Brocton.

120

SUTTON MADDOOK.

As Lord of Sutton, he grants to Wombridge Priory a plot of land
adjoining on the south to the cemetery of the Church of St. Mary
in the mil of Sutton. 60

As Madoc, son of Griffin de Sutton, he granted to the same
Priory a rent of 4s. receivable on a half-virgate in the Heamme;
and a rent of 6rf. receivable on the Meadow of Bwbemere. 61

I have already intimated that between the years 1262 and 1269,
Madoc Fitz Griffin sold his Manors of Sutton, Ellardine, and
Rowton, to John le Strange (in) of Nesse and Cheswardine. I find
it positively stated with regard to Ellardine and Rowton, that John
le Strange enfeoffed his eldest son and heir therein, and that the
latter granted both to Robert his younger Brother. 6 *

Something of the same kind evidently happened in regard to
Sutton, for at the Assizes of September 1272, the Brimstree Jurors,
reporting the Serjeantries in their Hundred, certify that " Robert
le Strange holds the Manor of Sutton by serjeantry of conducting
the King in Wales in time of war." 68

This Robert le Strange, as I have already said under Willey, was
one of the Crusaders then absent from England. Though he lived
to return, it would appear that before his departure he had taken
the precaution of granting Sutton to Fulk the second of his then
infant Sons. Upon Robert le Strange's death (about August 1276),
Sir Bogo de Enovile, then Sheriff of Shropshire, seized Sutton into
the King's hand. This step, the result of Fulk le Strangers
minority, was called in question, and an Inquest was ordered to
ascertain and report all particulars to the King. The Jurors, headed
by the Sheriff and the King's Escheator, sat at Shrewsbury on
September 25, 1276. They reported the above particulars, and that
the Manor of Sutton was of the annual value of £12. 7s. 9±d. u

90 Ibidem, No. lxzxij. — Witnesses:
Oliver de Stocton, Philip de Pres, John de
Ruton, John de Grenhull, Yyo deBrocton,
Thomas de B roc ton.

41 Monaaticon, vi, p. 890. This grant,
though included in Edward IPs Intpcx-
imtiSy is not in the Cbartulary.

18 Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, Salop,
memb. 16 dorso.

A Wombridge deed which passed, I
think, between 1260 and 1270 is attested
by John Lord of Sutton, whom 1 take to
be John le Strange the younger. (Char-
tulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xxxvj.)

» Placita Corona, 56 Hen. Ill, m. 28.

* Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I, No. 87.
Bogo de Knoyile afterwards married
Alianora the widow of "Robert le Strange.
In her right he was seized in 1292 of £5.
annual rent in Sutton, being her dower
out of the estate of her first husband and
"the inheritance of Fulk le Strange."
Bogo was questioned at the Assizes for
his authority in contracting this mar-
riage. He called "the Record" (the
Patent or Close Boll containing the King's
license) " to warranty." Placita Corona,
20 Edw. I, memb. 22.

SUTTON MADDOCK.

121

We know how this investigation resulted. — Fulk le Strange con*
tinned a ward of the Crown, and Sutton an Escheat till 1289, for
at the Assizes of 1292, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred reported
as follows. — " Fulco le Strange holds Sutton, which is worth £10,
by Serjeantry, viz. by finding four foot-soldiers to the ward of
Montgomery for fifteen days at his own cost, and he owes suit to
the Hundred every three weeks." And Fulk (being summoned
into Court to give account of his due discharge of these services)
came forward and said that the Manor had been in the King's cus-
tody till three years since, when the King restored it to him, and
that he did the said suit (which the Sheriff certified), and acknow-
ledged the said (obligation to do) ward. 65

About the time, when this Fulk le Strange obtained livery of
Sutton by reason of his majority, he also became the heir of his
elder Brother, John le Strange of Whitchurch, who, dying without
issue at the early age of twenty-three, left a considerable inheritance
to this his Successor. Thus, and by formal writ of Parliamentary
Summons, did Fulk le Strange become first Baron of the House of
Blackmere, the originator of that noble succession, which, after
twice merging in lines greater than itself, is now no longer repre-
sented by a Talbot or a Howard, but is in abeyance between the
heirs-general of those illustrious races. 56

We have now only to notice the sequel of Fulk le Strangers con-
nexion with Sutton.

About the year 1291, calling himself Lord of Sutton Madoc, he
confirmed to Wombridge Priory all its acquisitions in that Manor,
particularly some, which the Canons appear to have recently made
-under grants of John de Brocton, Clerk, and Roger, son of Nicholas

u I>lacUaCor<ma,20Edw.I,memb.23.
The Inquest of 1284, called " Kirby's
Qnut" so misrepresents the status of
this Manor as to be hardly worth quoting
except to show that implicit reliance on
that Record would be misplaced. "Fuloo
le Strange," it says, "holds the Manor of
Stocton cum Brocton of the King in capit*
by service of one Knight to go with the
King into Wales for fifteen days in time
of war at his own cost. Fulco also pays
4r. for purpresture."

Fulk le Strange was under age,
but Tenant mi capUe both of Stockton,

Brockton, and] Sutton. Whaterer is
true in the above entry applies chiefly
to Stockton, but the Knight's service
possibly alludes to the tenure of Sutton.
The 4*. rent was due on Stockton,
but not for pvrprestvre. Thus Sutton
and Brockton remain all but unno-
ticed.

86 The present Lords Petre and Stour*
ton represent between them not less than
a dozen abeyant Baronies. Among the
number are those of Howard, Mowbray,
Segrave, Talbot, Strange of Blackmere,
Furnival and Giffard of Brimmesfield.

122

8UTTON HADDOCK.

Brusebon. He also grants them common-pasturage throughout
the Manor, except for goats. 57

About the same time Fulk le Strange came to an agreement with
the Canons, whereby the latter surrendered Madoc de Sutton's
grant of Hadinton (that is Sutton) Mill, in exchange for a messuage,
garden, croft, half-a-virgate of land, and other small parcels within
and without the vill of Brocton. 57

About June 11, 1300, he further releases to the Canons all his
right in land which they held in the Moor of Brocton, in the field
of Habenhul, on the day mentioned. 68

On March 11, 1308, styling himself Pulco le Strange, Lord of
Sutton Madoks, he grants to Richard de Sanford a parcel of his
waste land in Brocton, in his Manor of Sutton, lying between
lands of said Richard and of the Prior of Wombridge. The rent
reserved is 6rf. 69

It would be hardly consistent with my design to enumerate the
various public offices and honours which distinguished this Fulk le
Strange. Suffice it to say that as holding lands and rents to the
value of £20. and upwards, he was returned by the Sheriff of
Shropshire among those who were to muster at London on July 7,
1297, for foreign service. 60

The Feodary of 1316 mentions him as Lord of Whitchurch,
Wrockwardine, Corfham, Longnor, and Sutton. 60

He died in 1324, seized, either in his own right or in that of
Alianore his wife (daughter and Coheir of John Giffard of Brim-

57 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit Brocton
Nob. lxi, lxxxix. — The witnesses of these
deeds seem to have been nearly identical,
viz. Sir Robert Corbet (of Moreton),
Thomas Corbet (of Hadley), Sir William
de Hugford, and Richard Horde, with
Yto de Soultone also in the last.

68 Ibidem, No. lxij. — Witnesses : Sir
Symon de Leybourne, Sir Peter de Eyton,
Master Adam le Gust Rector of the
Church of Ydeshall, Roger Fitz John,
John Stivington.

» Charter at Haughton Hall.— This
deed is tested by Sir Roger Corbet, Peter
de Eyton, Pagan de Preston, Richard de
Mokeleston, John Fits Thomas of Broc-
ton, and others. It is dated at Hadleye
(the seat of the first witness), on the vigil
of St. Gregory the Pope in the 36th year of

Sing Edward, — an impossible date, which
probably purports to be March 11, 1808,
(the Clerk who drew the Conveyance not
adverting to the fact, that Edward I had
died eight months previously) . The Seal of
this deed, though mutilated, is a specimen
of the tasteful design and neat execution
which distinguished the heraldic devices
of the period. The lower half of a shield
exhibits one of the Lions Passant of Le
Strange. Exterior to the dexter margin
of the shield is a Lizard beautifully en-
graved. The only remaining part of the
Legend is the word stravnge.

• Parliamentary Writs, vol. i, p. 848, and
vol. iv, pp. 1468-70, where also are more
than sixty entries of his offices, liabilities,
and summonses, both military and parlia-
mentary, during a period of thirty years.

SUTTON MADDOCK.

128

mesfield), of various Estates in Nottinghamshire, Hampshire, and
Shropshire, including this Manor of Sutton, which descended to
John his eldest son and heir, then eighteen years of age. 61

W« must not leave this Manor without noticing some of those
Tenancies or Subinfeudations in which it abounded. The principal
of these were granted by Griffin Goch while Lord of Sutton
(1194-1221) ; but his Feoffment of Ralph de Sanford claims first
attention, not only by reason of its extent and the importance of
the Feoffee, but because it can be illustrated by an unusual and
most interesting concurrence of evidences.

SANFORD FEE IN SUTTON AND BROCKTON.

At Salop Assizes, Oct. 6, 1203, a Fine seems to have been levied
between Griffin son of Yorward (Gervase) Plaintiff, and Ralph
Wolaston, Tenant, of one hide of land in Brockton, whereof was suit
at law. 89 The particulars of the Fine, I cannot declare, but think
from what will presently appear, that it must have involved a
surrender of the Tenancy.

At these same Assizes one Ralph Wallensis should be noticed as
standing Surety for Ralph de Sanford in a suit which concerned
possessions of the latter in Rothal (Ruthall near Ditton Priors).

Among some Pleas in Banco which appear to belong to Michael-
mas Term 1204, the following is entered : — " Ralph de Samford
offered himself against Griffin, son of Gervord, and Wilikin, his
man, and Robert Cocus (and five others) in a plea of appeal. And
they (the Defendants) are not forthcoming, neither have they
eloigned themselves, and though they should be under pledges (to
appear) the Sheriff has sent the names of none (such Sureties) .
Therefore the Court decided that they should give sufficient pledges
for their appearance in Court, on 'the Octaves of St. Martin, to
answer herein, and that the Sheriff do also attend to show why,
fee " (he had neglected the former order of the Court). 63

On the day named (Oct. 18) " Ralph de Sanford appeared against
William, the man of Griffin, and others, in a plea of land " (as the

« Inquisitions, 17 Edw. II, BTo. 73.

•* This Fine does not exist in the proper
Custody. The extract which I give is all
that oan he gathered from a Memorandum
in HarL MSS. 1896, fo, 866 b ; where,
however, I should notice particukrlj that
it steads at the head of some Sanford

Evidences, thus proving that the San-
fords were interested in its preservation
and that it concerned the very hide of
land which they afterwards held.

° Plaeita anm incerH Regit Johanni*,
No. 75, memb. 2 dorso.

124 SUTTON MADDOCK.

Record has it). Bat both the Defendants and the Sheriff are
absent and the latter as remiss as before. So a stringent order is
made on all parties to be in Court on the Qtrinzaine of St. Hilary
(Jan. 27, 1206). w

The Bolls of that Term are lost, but we have Rolls of Easter
Term 1206, which say nothing of the continuance of this Suit.
We may, therefore, conclude that it had been settled in the interval ;
and in extraordinary corroboration of such an idea a Charter
happens to be found in a private collection, of which the substance
is as follows : —

Grifin, son of Gervase Goh, gives and concedes to Balph de
Sanford one hide of land in Brockton for his homage and service,
viz. that hide which Ralph Walensis held ; — to hold to him and his
heirs, rendering 2s. yearly. — For this, Sanford had given the Grantor
twenty -six merks, and had acquieied him in that appeal in which he
had drawn him into a Suit in the Court of the Lord the King. He
also grants that the said Ralph shall have pannage in his wood of
Sutton for all the swine which shall be reared on said hide of
land. 66

Thus did Ralph de Sanford, Lord of Sanford and Ruthall, obtain
footing in Sutton. The transaction is described with great accuracy
in an Inquest nearly fifty years afterwards, which recounted the
several alienations from the Serjeantry of Madoc de Sutton.
"Griffin, Madoc's Father," says the Record, "alienated four
virgates" (equal to a hide) " of land to Ralph de Saumford, out of
the Manor of Sutton." The four virgates were at the time of this
return worth 40*. per annum. M

The additions which Ralph de Sanford continued to make to this
estate are the subject of an interesting series of documents, three of
which have been already cited, one under Brockton, one under
Sutton, and one under Broseley. By another Deed, Henry le
Strange grants to the said Ralph, for two merks, two acres in
Brockton, " called the Parroc, and which are close to Medebroc." 87
— Rent to be 2d. yearly. 68

64 Ibidem, memb. 12.

68 Charter at Haughton, — attested by
Walter de Huggefbrd, Richard de Biriton,
Hugo de Becheburi, Richard de Stirgle,
Robert de Say, Reginald de Time, Robert
de Espele, Baldwin Wiscard, Robert de
Longeb", Hugh de Wonlock, Geoffrey
Rusel, and William de Beggesore, — whose

names would alone prove the deed to have
passed between 1201 and 1211.
88 Testa de Nevill, fo. 274.

87 The small stream still known as the
Mad-brook, and which gave a name both
to Madeley and Brockton.

88 Charter at Haughton. — Witnesses :
William de Beggesoure, William Russel,

Sea] of Griffin son of Gerv&se Goch..
Tide page ]24.uote 65)

Seal of Maxloc de Sutton

\ Vide pa^e 119. note 4'4 '

SeaJ of Henry le Strange of Brockton

f Vide paee .?5 note 68)

SUTTON MADDOCK

125

At the Assizes of November 1221, I fiftd that Ralph de Sanford
had a suit concerning 2 virgates of land against William de
Bechesaur, which he failed to prosecute. 89 I cannot help asso-
ciating this suspended suit with a deed whereby William de
Begesoure grants to Ralph de Sanford a virgate in Brocton, half of
which was held by Hugh de Beckbury, and half by Adam Ythel,
at an annual rent of 5#. 70

By another deed Richard de Beggesoure grants to the same
Ralph an acre in the field of Herame, "which extends to the
torrent opposite the croft of Alan Infans." n

William Cocus of Broctun, grants to the same Ralph half-a-
virgate in Broctun at a rent of 6d. n —

This deed passed between the years 1231 and 1235, in the former
of which Helias Cocus the predecessor of William was living, and
in the latter of which Ralph de Sanford the Grantee was deceased.

We have thus altogether a series of 10 deeds, commencing about
1205, and ending within 30 years later, and which exhibit the
feoffments of one individual in the same Manor.

I now proceed to give the substance of another series of deeds,
extending through the same period, and which show the mode in
which Ralph de Sanford dealt with these acquisitions. —

By the first of these, Radulf de Sanford gives and concedes to
Margaret, daughter of Richard the Priest (Sacerdotis) of Brocton,
a virgate in Brocton, half of which Roger French (Francigena)

Helias Cocas, Robert Ooous, Richard de
Beggesoure, Robert Dapifer, Henry Fits
Ywein, Adam Fits Idel, William Beadle
of Sutton. The Seal of this deed is well
executed and bears a Legend, proving the
Grantor to have been son of some Ralph
le Strange.—

There was also a Roger le Strange of
Brockton in 1276.

* Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 7.

" Charter at Haughton. The names
of the witnesses are in perfect accordance
with the date assumed (1221). They are
Hugh de Becheberi, Walter de Hugeford,
Richard de Ruton, Henry le Strange,
Walter de Stircheleg, Robert Cocus,
Richard de Begesouer, William Russel,
Robert de Trillewurthin.

71 Charter ibidem. — Tested by Henry
le Strange, William de Beggesoure, Robert

II.

Trilleworthin, William Russel, Henry
Iweyn, Helias Cocus, Alan Infans, Philip
de Frees, Clerk. —

The Seal of this deed is rude. The
device seems to be four ears of wheat
with the stalks conjoined cross- wise. In
the Legend the Grantor's name is spelt
" Becesovre," which gives the exact ori-
ginal of the name " Badgjr." I incline
to date this deed at least ten years later
than the last.

B Charter ibidem.— Tested by Philip
de Burewardesleg, Walter de Huggeford,
Gerard de Ivelith, Henry le Strange,
William Ruffus, William de Beggesour,
Robert de Trillewurthin. The Seal has
the Legend —

SlGILLtTM WlLLBLMI Li CHV.

The deed passed between 1231 and
1235.

126

SUTTON MADDOCK.

held, and Osbert the other half. — She and her heirs are to hold the
same in fee, at a rent of 2s. payable to the Grantor and his heirs,
But if the Grantor should be unable to warrant the land he would
give an equivalent within 40 days. Margaret pays 12± mcrks for
this grant. — If she die without heir of her body, she may make one
of her Brethren her heir. 78

This deed (throwing by the way some light on the kind of
clerical celibacy practised at the time) was nearly contemporary
with another, whereby Radulf de Sontford, for 30*., enfeoffs Richard
Pitz Roger in a virgate of land at Brocton, which his Father held
in Wodecrofte, and also in all that land which Richard de Grene
held. The rent in this case was to be 14*. 74

By another deed Radulf de Santford grants to John, son of Sibil
de Brocton, 1 virgate in the vill of Brocton, viz. that which Sibil,
John's Mother, held. — To have and to hold after Sibil's decease,
first to John and Agnes his Wife and their heirs of their bodies,
then to the heirs of John by any future wife, or to Agnes if she
survive John ; and then to William, son of Alan I/Enfant, for life
only. A relief of 12*. is to be paid at Sibil's death, and a further
rent of 12*. per annum. The fine, acknowledged as already paid
for the grant, is 40*. 76

Sir Ralph de Sanford was, as I have said, deceased in 1235. He
was succeeded at Brockton and elsewhere by Richard his son and
heir, who during the next fourteen years is found attesting several

71 Charter ibidem. — Tested by Roger
de Beggesour, Warm de Burwardalej,
Warner de Wililey, Walter de Hugford,
Richard de Raton, Hugh de Becheburi,
Geoffrey Rusel, William de Beggesour,
Helias Coons, Robert Cocus, and many
others, Clerks and Laymen. This deed
passed between the years 1205 and 1211.
It is worth observing that by this sub-
infeudation of one fourth of the land
which he had obtained from Griffin de
Sutton, Ralph de 8anford realized the
whole rent and nearly half the purchase
money payable or paid to his own
Feoffor.

74 WombridgeChnrtu\arj, Tit. Brocto*,
No. x.— Tested by Sir Gryffin de Sutton
and his heirs, Sir Roger de Beggesour
and his heirs, Manoell de Petteshull
(Patshull) and his heirs, Hugh de Beok-

buri *]nd his heirs, Richard de Ruton and
his heirs, William de Beggesour and his
heirs.

7* Charter at Haughton.— Tested by
the Lord Prior of Wombrug, Madoc
Fits Griffin, Griffin his brother, Gilbert
Chaplain of Kembricton, Nicholas Chap-
lain of Sutton, Henry le Strange, Robert
de Brocton, William Russel, Thomas his
son, Henry Fits Iwein. —

This deed is of date about 1281, at least
a dated Charter of that year contains
nearly the same names. It appears to be
in the same hand-writing as that of
William Russel (supra, p. 94). The Seal
of this deed is of green wax and well
presorted. It exhibits a Knight on
horseback, charging sword in hand, and
this Legend —

SlGILLVM RaDUI.FI DE SaNFORT.

BUTTON MAODOCK.

127

deeds in this neighbourhood, and who, I think, occurs as a witness
in one instance before his Father's death.

He, like his Father, was a Knight. A deed which must have
passed between 1241 and 1249, shows Stephen Cude of Brocton,
granting to " Sir Richard, Lord of Sonford " for the sum of 4*. 6rf.
half-an-acre of land in Hemme. 76 This Stephen Cude or Keede
has already appeared as holding half-a-virgate under Philip de
Farlow. He, or his Father William, had also, as we shall presently
see, been enfeoffed by Ralph de Sanford in a virgate at Brockton.

But to return to Richard de Sanford. — He appears to have died
in 1249, and being a Tenant in capite at Sanford and Ruthall an
Inquest was held shortly after, as to his estate. 77 The Jurors,
among whoin were Roger de Bagsore and Ivo de Brocton, said that
he had held in Brocton under Sir Madoc de Sutton by service of
2*. per annum: that he had there half-a-carucate in demesne,
which, with its meadows, was worth 20s. per annum ; that he had
a Mill there worth 10s. per annum, and rents from Tenants amount-
ing to £2. 6s. 8d. ; that Ralph de Sanford his son and next heir
was 14 years of age.

The deceased, as I find from another Record, left a Widow, Ali-
anora, whose lands were in 1255 estimated at 100*. annual value,
and who was then remarried to Richard Burnel. 78

The wardship of the heir, Ralph de Sanford, was granted by the
King to Germanus Scissor, who selling the same to Odo de Hodnet,
the latter obtained the King's Letters Patent dated Sept. 1, 1249,
confirming such transfer. 79

In Easter Term 1250, Felicia, widow of William Kede, is found
suing Stephen Kede for dower in a virgate of land. Stephen called
Ralph Sanford (the Minor) to warranty. 80 A protracted litigation
ensued, for in July 1251, I find Simon de Wanton and Robert de
Grendon appointed to try the suit which " Felicia, widow of William
Code, had against Odo de Hodnet and Stephen Code as to a tene-
ment in Brocton." 81

* Charter ibidem. — Tested by Robert
de Tirlewurthin, Ito de Brocton, Roger
Bagesore, Thomas Ruesel, Richard Iwen.
By the " Hemme " mentioned in this and
other Brockton deeds we are not to un-
derstand the neighbouring vill, so called,
and which is in Shifmal Parish. One of
the large town-fields of Brockton was
thus named.

77 Inquisitions incerli temporie Hen-
ri* III, No. 111. The date of this In-
quest (1249) is found by evidence quite
conclusive, but too long to insert.

* Rot. Hnnd. ii, 57.

» Rot. Pat. 38 Henry III.

80 Placita apud Westm. Easter Term
34 Hen. III.

81 Rot. Pat. 35 Henry III. Another

128

SUTTON HADDOCK.

It is clear that Odo de Hodnet was a party in consequence of his
continued guardianship of Ralph de Sanford.

At Salop Assizes, January 1256, " Robert Prudhome challenged
Richard Burnel, for that whilst he, Robert (being in the KingV
Peace) was in a barn of Odo de Hodenet's at Brocton, on Wednes-
day, August 11 (1255) Richard came and took away twelve thraves
of corn. He (Robert) also charged William Parvus, Stephen Kede,
Yvo de Brocton, and Thomas de Wyke, that they were aiding and
abetting said Richard. This challenge was declared to be null. 82

At the same Assizes there was (in continuation of the former
suit) a prosecution under writ of mort (Fancestre by Sibil and Mar-
gery, daughters of William Kede, against Stephen Kede, to ascer-
tain whether the said William died seized of half-a-virgate in
Brocton, and whether the said Sibil and Margery were his next
heirs. Stephen Kede, the Tenant, " appeared and called to war-
ranty Ralph, son and heir of Richard de Saunford, who was under
age and in custody of Odo de Odenet, by charter of Ralph de Saun-
ford, grandfather of the aforesaid Ralph, which charter of feoffment
he (Stephen) produced/' The cause was adjourned till Ralph de
Saunford should attain his majority. 83

This Ralph must have come of age shortly afterwards, but I post-
pone farther mention of him to another occasion, inasmuch as I
find little to connect him with Sutton and Brockton beyond his
attestation of a few local deeds. He thus attests as a Knight, about
1290, and dying in 1307, left a son Richard, thirty years of age,
who has already been mentioned as a Grantee of Fulk le Strange in
March 1308.

BURWARDSLEY FEE IN SUTTON AND BROCKTON.

I have already adverted to the fact of Griffin de Sutton having
enfeoffed Warin de Burwardsley in two virgates here, and have
suggested that the said feoffment was in composition of some claim
which Warin had, in 1195, on Griffin's Manors of Rowton and
Ellardine. Deeds have also been cited, showing that Warin de
Burwardsley's estate in Brockton remained to Philip his son, and
that the latter enfeoffed Ralph de Sanford in one-half of the pre-

Patent of the same time shows Richard
Burnell and Alianore his wife, in litiga-
tion with Odo de Hodnet about their
respective rights at Sandford. This will
illustrate the next entry in the text.

82 flaciia Corona. 40 Hen. Ill, Salop,
memb. 9.

83 Assizes at Salop, 40 Henry III,
memb. 2.

SUTTON MADDOCK.

129

mises, reserving however an annual rent of 12rf. to himself and his
heirs. I neither find what became of the other virgate nor any
subsequent notice of a mesne interest here continuing with the
heirs of Burwardsley. In 1251, however, these two virgates are
mentioned and recognized as a distinct tenement, of the annual
value of two merks, but nothing whatever is said of their occupa-
tion at the time. 84

COCUS FEE IN BROCKTON.

The Record last quoted specifies another alienation made by
Griffin de Sutton in this Manor. It was of one virgate to Elyas
Cocus at a rent of 2s., and this land was in 1251 worth 15*.
per annum.

Accordingly we have Elias or Helias Cocus a witness in various
deeds ranging in date from the year 1194 to 1231.

" Helyas Coquus granted to Wombridge Priory for the health of
his soul an acre of land at Brocton in the field called Bedlesdun." 85

He also granted to the same, in composition of a certain debt,
three acres in the field of Brocton for a term of twenty years, com-
mencing Oct. 26, 1231. 86

Contemporary with Helias Cocus was Robert Cocus, whose rent
of 12rf. payable to Griffin Goch we have already seen transferred by
the latter to Wombridge Priory.

The successor of Helias Cocus was William Cocus, whose grant
of half his estate (half-a- virgate) to Ralph de Sanford, reserving 6d.
rent, has been cited as having passed between 1231 and 1235. The
sequel of this name and Tenure will be best shown by a few extracts
from the Wombridge Chartulary. —

John Ithell de Brocton grants to William Cocus an acre of three

M Testa de Fevill fo. 274.

* Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broc-
ton, No. lix. — Tested by Henry le Strange,
Nicholas de Kembricton, John Fits Sibil.

u Ibidem No. Lx. — Tested by Sir Madoo
de Sutton and Griffin, his Brother, Ni-
cholas the Priest (Sacerdote), William de
Sutton, Henry le Strange. The way in
which the Term of twenty yean is fixed
by this deed shows how unused were the
Country Law- Clerks to express a date
and how oddly they did it. The Term is
to commence " from the year when Castle

Matilda was fortified j and Sir E. de
Noyayilla, the Chancellor, was elected
Archbishop ; and E was the Sunday
letter." The deed was also written " on
the 7th of the kalends of November in
that year." It was about July 1231 that
Henry III rebuilt Castle Matilda in El-
vein : soon after August 2, 1231, Ralph
de Nevill, Bishop of Chichester and Chan-
cellor, was elected Archbishop of Canter-
bury ; and E was the Sunday letter of
1231. The deed (it may be added) passed
on a Sunday.

130

SUTTON MADDOCK.

seilion* near Kembrichaismere, for 6*. paid, and a rent of Id, 67
The same John "Idthel" grants the same acre to Wombridge
Priory, 88 that is I suppose he grants his reserved right therein con-
currently with the following grant by his former Feoffee. —

William Cocus of Brocton grants to Wombridge Priory half-a-
virgate which he held in Brocton with a certain messuage and
croft; also an acre which he bought from John Yethele; also 6tf.
annual rent receivable from the heirs of Ralph de Sontford on half-
a-virgate which they held of him in Brocton. 88

Thus about the year 1250 did this tenure in Brockton become
wholly absorbed by Wombridge Priory.

TENURE OF BEGESOUR IN SUTTON AND BROCKTON.

I have already said that William de Begesour, who, about 1174,
sold his inheritance at Badger, appears to have left successors else-
where. That he should have an interest in Brockton becomes the
more probable inasmuch as the Fief of his Suzerains, the Lords of
Richard's Castle, at one time extended to that quarter.

However 1 cannot determine the mode in which his presumed
descendants, the Begesours of Brockton, held their lands. Their
deeds are unattended by any confirmation or consent of a superior
Lord, and yet it is certain that they were not Tenants in capite.

Of this family William de Begesour occurs from 1194 to 1232 ;
also Roger son and heir of William occurs during his Father's life-
time and subsequently till about 1263. Contemporary with both
Father and Son was Richard de Begesour already mentioned.

The son and heir of Roger was a second William, occurring from
about 1268 to 1280. A Richard occurs about 1300, a third William
in 1316, and Thomas in 1341, all being distinctly of Brockton and
in no way confounded with the family of the same name which
held a higher position at Badger.

Of the persons thus named I find little more than their names. —
William de Beggesoure approves and attests about 1230 a transfer

•* Ibidem, No. xxiv. — Tested by Ma-
doc de Sutton, Hugh de Hadinton, Rich-
ard de Grenhull.

88 Ibidem, No. xxxvij. — Tested by Sir
Madoc de Sutton, Nicholas Chaplain of
Sutton, Hugh de Hadington, John Lord
of GrenhuL

• Ibidem, No. xlij.— Tested by 8ir Wal-
ter de Dunstanvill, Walter de Huggeford,
Madoe de Sutton, Odo deHodeuet, Wal-
ler de Kembriton, Herbert de Ydeshal,
Hugh de Hedinton, Hugh de Bolinthal,
John de Grenhul, Oliver de Knoll, Yto
de Brocton.

SUTTON HADDOCK.

131

of land by one of his under-tenants at Brockton ; °° Roger was a
Benefactor about 1263 to Wombridge Priory, and his deed
mentions two of his Tenants, viz. Richard Fitz Edith and Thomas
de Brocton. 91

The second William de Begesour had three transactions with
Wombridge Priory, the first a small grant, the other two ex-
changes. 93 His amercement for some default at the Forest Assizes
of Nov. 1271, is all that I find further noticeable, either as regards
him or the continuators of his name at Brockton. 93

HARRINGTON formerly HADDINGTON.

This was undoubtedly a member of the Domesday Manor of Sutton
and so continued till the death of Hamo Peverel, about 1136. In
1157, part of Harrington (avirgate) went still with Sutton and the
other Tornai lands, then obtained by Gervase Goch ; but the re-
mainder (more than 4 virgates) was not thus involved, probably as
having been previously bestowed elsewhere.

I will first speak of the virgate obtained by Gervase Goch. — A
Record already quoted, informs us that Griffin (son of Gervase),
enfeoffed Hugh de Beckbury therein, by service of 12d. (rent), and
that its full value was then (1251) 10s. per annum. 94 This fact is
sufficiently illustrated by a number of Sutton and Brockton Deeds
which, passing in the first quarter of the 13th century, have the attes-
tation of this Hugh de Beckbury. His marriage, presently to be
noticed, had given him a footing in Harrington before he obtained
the feoffment of Griffin Goch, and at his death, which must have
happened about Dec. 1226, he was possessed of other interests in
this Manor or Township.

He left two sons, necessary to be mentioned here, John and
Hugh. Griffin de Sutton's Feoffment having probably been limited
to Hugh and his heirs, the virgate under notice will have descended

m Wombridge Chartulary. TU.Broo*
ton, No. xivj. — The other witnesses being
the Prior of Wombridge, Henry le Strange
and William Russel; the two latter of
whom attested this William's grant to
Ralph de Sanford, as already noticed.

• l Ibidem, No. xxxvj.— Tested by Sir
Walter de Dunstanville, Sir John Fitz
Hugh, John de Ercalewe, John de Sti-
venton, Herbert de Wyke, John Lord of

Sutton, John de Qrenhull, Ivo de Broc-
ton, Richard Burnel, Adam Pollard of
Lee, Oliver de Knolle.

* Ibidem, Nos. xxxij, xxxiij and lxx.

98 It is curious to observe how this
name became gradually contracted after
its transplantation to Brockton. The
ultimate forms which it assumed were
•imply Bag or Beg.

« TeHa de Nevitt, fo. 274.

132

SUTTON MADDOCK.

to Hugh's eldest son John, and again from John, who died abont
1250, to John's eldest son Philip.

Madoc de Sutton's seignoral interest in this parcel of land be-
comes again apparent in 1256, when his Concession of Sutton to
Wombridge Priory includes " rents and escheats of Hedinton."

However a moiety of this virgate seems at some subsequent
period to have reverted to the Lord of the Fee.

Hence in 1284, it was found of a virgate here that Fulk le Strange
held half thereof in capite of the King, whilst Philip de Bechebur
held the other half under Fulk. 96

I find no later notice of this virgate in Harrington, and conclude
that it became again absorbed in the Parent Manor of Sutton.

The other and greater part of Harrington followed a succession
liable to be confused with, but essentially distinct from, the parcel
thus far treated of. At the time of Gervase Goch's acquisition of
Sutton (1157), this land had probably been bestowed elsewhere.
However about March 1163, it fell into the King's hands, by death
or forfeiture of the former Grantee ; consequently at Michaelmas
1163, the Sheriff renders account "of the ferm of Hadinton,
escheated land which was Gerard de Turnai's ; viz. for half a year
20*."*

About this time, the name of Roger Mussun occurs more than
once on the Shropshire Pipe -Rolls among those who were in the
service and favour of King Henry II.

That King also, when, about the year 1175, he visited Shrews-
bury, expedited a charter whereby he gave " to Roger Mussun, his
Servant, Uppington under Mount-Gilbert " and, what is more to
our present purpose, " 50 solidates of land in Heddinton which
had been Hamo Pevereirs, and were near to Bruges" (written
Burgam). The service retained by tne King on the whole grant,
was the payment of one sore Sparrow-hawk yearly, by said Roger
and his heirs. 97

I shall here say briefly of Roger Mussun that he was a Benefactor
to Wombridge Priory, and that dying about the year 1191, he left
a Widow, Galiena, and at least nine daughters and Coheiresses to
share his estates. Harrington, whose estimated extent seems to
have been four-and-a-half virgates, was accordingly divided into
several shares. Galiena, the Widow, had half-a-virgate, two of the

M Kirtys Quest. The Record ifi not
very clear on this matter, but I doubt not
that such is its intended meaning.

* Rot. Pip. 9 Hen. II, Salop.
91 Wombridge Chartulary. Tit Upin-
ton, No. ccxTJ.

SUTTON MADDOCK.

133

daughters, viz. Juliana, wife of * * * Corbrond, and Sibil, wife of
Richard de Bruges, had half-a-virgate each, Alina, wife of Hugh
de Beckbury, had a share which, with the other shares (however
allotted in the first instance), amounted to three virgates, and
eventually centred in Hugh the second son of the said Hugh and
Alina, and in Muota, daughter of the same Hugh, junior.

Galiena, Widow of Roger Mussun, gave her half-virgate in
frank almoigne to Wombridge Priory, for the soul of her Husband
and Parents. 98 The Priory leased it to Philip the Chaplain, for a
term of years, but afterwards (about 1220) granted it to Adam de
Cherleton (husband of Alice, another of the aforesaid Coheiresses)
in exchange for a parcel of land at Uppinton." All I shall further
say of this half-virgate is, that Richard de la Buri, Great-grandson
of Adam and Alice, occurs in 1284 as holding it in capite of the
King, 100 and that in 1292 he was still Tenant thereof, though the
King had in the interim granted the seigneury of all that was
implied by the payment of the aforesaid Sparrow-hawk to Robert
Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells. 101

So also the half-virgate in Harrington, which after her Father's
death was allotted to Juliana Corbrond, is found in 1284 and 1292
to be similarly held by Richard Corebrond, her Great-grandson and
representative.

The half-virgate of Sibil de Bruges did not so long remain with
her descendants, though it reached the hands of her Great-grandson
also. He, viz. Richard, son of Richard de Bruges, sold it, with the
messuage thereon, about 1264, for 40s. and a \d. rent, to Jane,
widow of Hugh de Beckbury. 103 She in turn granted it to Wom-
bridge, on condition that at her death her body should be buried at
the Priory, her name written in the " Martyrology" of the House,

* Wombridge Chartulary, IU. Hadin-
ton, No. y. The deed passed about 1195.
The witnesses are numerous and impor-
tant, viz. Master Robert of Salopesbury
(who became Bishop of Bangor, March
1197), Richard his Brother, Gregory
Chaplain of Wroccester, Ernald Chaplain
of Opinton (Uppinton), Philip de Welin-
ton, Master Richard of Hideshal (Idsall),
Will de Hedleg the jounger (minor),
Out de Sagebury (Shawbury), Reinald de
Time, Richard de Chesthull, Alexander
de* Koto Burgo (both sons-in-law of the
Orantaress), Ralph de Horleton, Gilbert

II.

Mussun (Brother of Roger), Ralph de
Perrin, Robert Angevin, Adam de Wroc-
worthin, &c.

w Ibidem, No. i. Henry is the Prior
who grants. The witnesses are Baldwin
de Hodnet (dead Jan. 1225), Hugh Fits
Robert, William de Hedlee, Walter de
Stirglee (Stirchley), Robert de Brocton,
Roger de Besselawe.

"» Kirty* Quest.

m JPlacita Corona, 20 Edw. I,
memb. 28.

108 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Eadin-
io», No. ij.

134 SUTTON MADDOOK.

the anniversary of her death be duly kept, and special prayers
offered up for her soul. 103

In 1292, the Prior of Wombridge was questioned as to his tenure
of this half-virgate, which he is said however to have " purchased."
His reply, showing that the King had in 1286 granted the Sparrow-
hawk (t. e. the seigniory) reserved on this serjeantry to Robert
Burnell, in exchange for other lands, seems to have stopped the
enquiry. The Prior's Tenure was, in fact, no longer in capite nor
any concern of the Crown.

I now come to the residue of this Tenure, viz. three virgates
which went to Hugh de Beckbury and Alina his wife, daughter and
coheir of Roger Mussun, or were acquired by their descendants
from the other coheirs.

This Hugh, who, be it remembered, had a distinct interest here
as Feoffee of Griffin de Sutton, was also Lord of Beckbury, and an
important personage in many other respects. Confining myself
now to his Tenures in Harrington, I shall merely notice some
quarrel which he had with a neighbour of equal consequence.

Walter, Lord of Higford, claimed a right of common-pasture in
Harrington, whereof this Hugh disseized him. Walter laid his
complaint before King Henry III, when that Monarch, in Septem-
ber 1224, was at Shrewsbury with his Justiciars. Sentence was
given in the Plaintiff's favour, and Hugh was moreover amerced
two merks for the offence. The King, however, passing to Mont-
gomery, despatched a writ dated at that place on October 1, whereby
the Sheriff of Shropshire was ordered to discharge Hugh of half
this fine, a favour probably shown to Hugh as a sometime Servant
of the Crown, and at this very moment Chief Bailiff of the King's
Hundred of Bradford. Hugh paid the balance of the fine, but
instead of acquiescing in the judgment given against him, proceeded
to plough and sow the common-land in dispute. In August 1226,
the King was again at Shrewsbury, and Walter de Hugford made a
second complaint. Hugh appeared, and at first denied the charge ;
but presently admitting it, he was adjudged to pay 20s. damages,
for which Walinger de Sydenhale and Walter de Harpcote stood his
Sureties. 10 *

This Hugh de Beckbury was living in October 1226, but deceased
before March 1227. His Wife Alina survived him at least ten
years, but both were eventually succeeded at Harrington by their

"B Ibidem, Nos. iij, ir. I Salop. Rot. Clout. 8 Hen. Ill, memb.

104 PlacUa coram Rege, 10 Henry III, I 3, and Rot. Pip. 10 Hen. Ill, Salop.

SUTTON MADDOCK. 135

second Son, called Hugh de Hadinton as often as Hugh de Beck-
bury in respect of this his Tenure.

This Hugh became a much more important person than his elder
Brother John. In 1229, he was already a Knight and stirring in
the affairs of the County. He acquired property at Oldbury,
Diddlebury, and Acton Burnell. About 1251, his interests in
Harrington are thus described : — " Hugh de Bekebur* is Tenant by
gift of his Ancestors (who held part of Upton (Uppington) which is
holden of the King in capite) of two virgates in Hadinton; by
what service is unknown. The Tenure is worth 20*. per annum.
Muota, daughter of the same Hugh, holds one virgate in the same
vill by gift of her aforesaid Ancestors. However the service L
unknown." 105 —

The service due on Hugh's Tenure in Harrington was involved in
the Sore Sparrow-hawk, paid by his Relations, the Coheirs of
Uppington, by whom, or some of whom, he, his Father, or his
daughter had been thus enfeoffed in Harrington.

In 1255, Hugh de Beckbury was farming the Hundred of
Bradford under the Sheriff at an annual rent of thirty-three merks. 106
The extortions of some his Deputies in this, his office of Bailiff, were
loudly complained of at the Inquest of 1255 by the Jurors of H ales-
Owen. One. Roger de Hales having, it appears, been amerced by
Roger de Turkelby for some offence, Hugh de Beckbury's Beadles,
or Sub- Bailiffs, made four successive seizures in satisfaction of the
single debt thus incurred. 107

At the Assizes of January 1256, Hugh de Beckbury had lost his
Bailiwick, or Bailiwicks, for I think he had been Fermor of more
than one Shropshire Hundred. He was, however, one of the two
principal Jurors of Brimstree Hundred, whose office it was to
choose their ten Colleagues. He is here called Hugh de
Hadington. 106

At these same Assizes, he was involved in a double law-suit with
Madoc de Sutton. He was sued by the latter for having disseized
him (Madoc) of a right of common in Hadinton, and was convicted.
Neither was he successful in certain counter-charges which he
endeavoured to establish against Madoc, viz. that he (Madoc) " to

m Testa de Nevill, fo. 275. : names alternately, so that a reader, not

108 Hot JIund. U, 58. | aware of the identity, must fail to under-

107 Ibidem II, 68. This Record is j stand the story altogether.

curious in one particular, viz. that it do- - m Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III. Placita

scribes Hugh de Beckbury by both his , Corona, m. 12.

136 SUTTON MADDOCK.

the damage of Hugh's Tenement in Hadinton, had stopped the road
which led to Sutton Church, and had disseized Hugh of his common
rights in Sutton." 109

In this year also, as was afterwards alleged, Hugh de Beckbury
demised a messuage and virgate in Hadington to Thomas Corbet, .
for a term of twenty years, commencing June 11. Of this how-
ever presently. —

In April 1263, this Hugh was deceased, leaving a widow,
Johanna, and a son and heir, Thomas. Of his daughter Muota, I
learn nothing further than that her interest in Harrington seems to
have reverted to her Brother or his Assignees.

Johanna, or Jane, Widow of Hugh de Beckbury, has already
been mentioned more than once. 110 I can sav little more of her
than that in 1267 she appears, as Ida, widow of Hugh de Beck-
bury, to have fined half-a-merk for license to accord some law-suit :
and that again in April 1271, she had proffered a similar sum for
some writ of the King. In the last case she is called Johanna. 111

Thomas de Beckbury, Son and Heir of Hugh, succeeded him at
Harrington ; but about September 1270, sold all his interest there
to Nicholas de Hugford, and, inter alia, his interest in that messuage
and virgate which Thomas Corbet had now held for fourteen-and-a-
quarter years. Nicholas de Hugford forthwith ejected Thomas
Corbet, whereupon the latter sued the said Nicholas, laying his
damages at £100. The cause was tried at Salop Assizes, October
1272, when the Parties pleaded the various circumstances already
detailed, Nicholas de Hugford asserting however, that Hugh de
Beckbury, Father of Thomas, had died seized of the virgate in
question, so that it descended to Thomas his (Nicholas') Feoffor.
In reply to this, Corbet offered to produce the deed of lease
(dimissionis), adding that Hugh de Beckbury was at his death only
so seized of the premises as having been appointed his (Corbet's)
Bailiff. On this issue Corbet puts himself on the Country, and
Nicholas likewise, appointing however his powerful neighbour (and
probably relation) William de Hugford as his Attorney against so
weighty an Antagonist as the Baron of Caus. The Jury found in
due course that Hugh de Beckbury died seized of the premises, and
that " Corbet had nothing therein" under his alleged deed. He
was therefore in misericordid. 11 *

109 Ibidem, memb. 14 and 13 dorso.
m Supra, Vol. I, pp. 134> 135, 372,
Vol. II, p. 133.

1,1 Sot. Pip. 51 Hen. Ill, Salop. Sot. •
Fin. vol. ii, 534.

1JS Salop Assizes, 56 Henry III, memb

8UTT0N MADDOCK.

187

Nothing is said in the Inquisition of 1284, as to the interest thus
acquired by Nicholas de Hugford in Harrington.

In October 1292 however, it was found as regards the Serjeantry
of Roger Mussun in Hadynton that it was worth 45*. per annum ;
" that it was held by service of rendering one Sore Sparrow-hawk
for Uppinton and Hadynton at the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincla ;
that John de Huggeford now (1292) holds thereof three virgates
worth 20s. per annum/ 9 and that the Prior of Wombrug holds half-
a-virgate, &c. 118

An account of several other under-tenancies in Sutton, Brockton, Byton, and
Grindle, might be extracted from the Wombridge Chartulary alone, but I must leave
a matter far too diffuse for my proposed, but already transgressed, limits. This
Chartulary, inaccurate as it occasionally is, affords a curious view of the assiduity and
method with which a small Priory guarded its own minutest interests. It contains
nearly 600 Instruments referring to property which, can hardly be estimated to have
extended over twice as many acres.

An Epitome of various grants to this house by Donniger, Brusebon, John the Clerk,
and other Under-Tenants in Brockton, Ac., has already been printed. Edward IPs
Inspeximvs, the document alluded to, is to be found in the New Monastieon
(voL vi, p. 388).

SUTTON CHUBCH.

The earliest notice which we have of a Church here has already
been stated. — Madoc son of Gervase Goch gave the same, as far as
he was concerned, about 1186-7, to Wombridge Priory.

An independent and nearly contemporary grant thereof to the
same Priory was made by Henry II, who treats the Advowson as
the undivided right of the Crown. It appears however, from the
King's Charter, that some negotiation on the subject had taken place
previously, for he reserves the life-interest of Ralph the Clerk (the
Rector I presume) " in conformity with the convention already made
between the said Ralph and the Canons." 11 *

4 doroo. Thomas Corbet, Baron of Caus,
employed a considerable portion of his
long life in quarrels or litigations of this
kind. He was generally unsuccessful, and
was in short an active and violent oppres-
sor. However, to these law-suits, I am
indebted for a fund of legal, local, and
genealogical information, on which I shall
often have to draw.

m Plaeita Corona, 20 Ed. I, memb.
28, Salop. — The rest of the return has
been already given, except that John de

Hugford was summoned to give account
of his Tenure on a future day. The Prior
of Wombridge however appeared, as
before stated, and his account of the
Tenure will have applied to Hugford' s
interest as well as his own. The heirs of
Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells,
occur more than twenty years afterwards as
seized of " 9*. rent in Uppiton,"— doubt-
less a substitute for the older service.

114 Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broc-
ton and Sutton, No. xcrij. and Harl. MSS.

138 8UTTON MADDOCK.

This Charter of King Henry II received the usual Confirmations. —
Pope Urban III, in a Bull dated at Verona, June 23, 1 187, confirmed
it with a condition as to its being sanctioned by the Diocesan
Bishop. 116 —

B. (Baldwin) Archbishop of Canterbury, "and Legate of the
Apostolick See " confirmed it. 116 —

Hygh, Bishop of Coventry, confirmed it, first by a Charter which
must have passed soon after his Consecration (Jan. 31, 1188), 117
and again by a Charter which bears date at Lichfield "on the
morrow of St. Clement, in the year in which Richard King of
England set out for Jerusalem " (i. e. Nov. 24, 1190). 118 — ,

G. (Geoffrey de Muschamp) Bishop of Coventry, in a Charter
which passed at Lichfield about November 1206, not only con-
firms the right of the Canons of Wombridge to the Church of
St. Mary of Sutton, as granted by King Henry II, and Bishop
Hugh, but either authorizes or sanctions an appropriation thereof.
" The Canons are to present proper Chaplains who shall receive the
Cure of souls from the hand of the Bishop, and shall serve the said
Church; the Canons shall assign to such Chaplains fit sustenance,
according to the custom of the Country and the faculties of the
Church; the residue they may retain to their own uses and the
entertainment of the poor." 119

Dec. 28, 1258, Bishop Roger (de Meuland) inspected and con-
firmed the Appropriations granted by his Predecessors, Geoffrey
and Alexander (de Stavensby), to Wombridge Priory of the
Churches of Sutton, and Lopinton, and of the Chapel of Upinton. 120

3868, fo. 5. The witnesses are, Hugh,
Bishop of Durham, and Peter, Bishop
of St. David's, H. Dean of York, Ranulf
de Glanvill, Brother Roger the Almoner,
Hugh de Morwic and Hugh Bardulf,
Sewers. The Charter is dated at Claren-
don, a circumstance which, with the wit-
nesses' names, indicates it, all hut cer-
tainly, to have passed in January 1187.

116 Wombridge Chartulary, Appendix
No. it. At the date of this Bull, Hugh
de Novant, Bishop Elect of Lichfield and
Coventry, had not been consecrated.

116 Ibidem, Tit. Brocton and Sutton,
No. ciij. This Confirmation must have
passed between 1187 and 1190.

transcribed in the Chartulary, purports
to be by " Henry" Bishop af Coventry.
As no such Prelate sat till the 19th Cen-
tury, we have again an instance of the
errors committed by Transcribers when
they have attempted to identify any name
represented in an original deed only by
its initial letter. The witnesses of this
Charter prove it to have been by Hugh
de Novant.

118 Ibidem, No. cij.

119 Ibidem, Tit. Lopinton, No. vij.
Dated " in the year when a Council was
celebrated by John the Cardinal at
Beading," for which, as indicated in the
text, see M. Paris, sub anno 1206.

117 Ibidem, No. cj. This Charter, as i lw Ibidem, No. vj.

SUTTON HADDOCK. 139

Dec. 29, 1258, Ralph the Dean, and the Chapter of Lichfield
inspected and, for their part, confirmed Bishop Roger's Charter. 121

April 28, 1262, William the Prior and the Convent of Coventry
did the same. 122

In 1281, some question had arisen as to the Taxation or Or-
dination of this Church, i. e. the proportions of its income which
should be allotted to the Vicar before the Impropriators received
the residue. The Bishop's Official writes on March 5 th to the
Official of the Archdeacon of Salop, alluding to an inquiry, which
the latter had been previously ordered to make on the subject, and
acknowledging the receipt of his report resulting from such inquiry,
but at the same time stating that he (the Bishop's Official) is not
thereby fully informed. The Archdeacon's Official is therefore to
cite the Prior and Canons of Wombridge to appear on a certain
Saturday, 123 at Stafford, before himself (the Bishop's Official), and
there in the Church of the Canons (St. Thomas the Martyr's)
exhibit an instrument, if they have one, as to the last Taxation of
Sutton Vicarage. And, not to leave the matter liable to the
contingency of the Canons producing such a document, — the
Archdeacon's Official is to cite the Rectors, Vicars, and Chaplains,
who live nearest to Sutton, and twelve honest Laymen who best
know the true value of the said Church, to appear before the
Bishop's Official or his Commissaries, on May 31, in the Parish
Church of Wombridge, to give information on the point. The
Archdeacon's Official is also to attend himself, and to inform
the Prior and Canons that they may attend if they think better to
do so. 12 *

The truth is, I suppose, that the Priory had no such Instrument of
Taxation, but in default of Episcopal interference tad interpreted
their right of Appropriation with a view to their own interests.

The stringent course proposed by Bishop Roger de Meuland's
Official does not seem to have led to any immediate result.

However, on March 15, 1285, a Charter of that Prelate settles the
matter and embodies the particulars of his. " Ordination of the
Vicarage of Sutton juxta Bruges." — viz. —

" The Vicar for the time being shall have a sufficient House on
the Glebe (in solo ecclesiastico) , and half-a-virgate of land: also
all Mortuaries, the tithe of hay in Sutton and Hadyngton, the tithes

m Ibidem, TU. Brocton and Sutton,
No. cir,-— corrected by HarL MSS. 3868,
fo.4.

1M Ibidem, No. cr.

*■ Die Sabbati qua eantaiur Scitientet.

m Ibidem, No. xcriij.

140

SUTTON MADDOCK.

of wool, lambs, young swine, colts, calves, white-honey, geese,
apples, and pannage ; also tithes of gardens and crofts under spade
culture (pede cultorum), and all oblations and offerings at the Altar
however arising ; also all tithes of fisheries, mills, and of wood sold
within the Parish ; and the tithes of flax and hemp. —

The Vicar shall bear all expenses attaching to the exercise of his
office, and the Rectors bear all charges ordinary or extraordinary,
which lie upon the Church." 125

In 1291, the Church of Sutton Madok is valued at £4. 13s. 4rf. 12 «

May 8, 1320, Bishop Walter (de Langton) having recently made
Visitation of the Archdeaconry of Salop, certifies that he found
the Priory of Wombridge, Impropriators of this Church ; that
the Canons being summoned to exhibit their title thereunto
had done so to his complete satisfaction. The Bishop therefore
dismisses them as the true and Canonical Rectors of this
Church. 1 **

In the year 1315, the Archdeacon of Salop visiting Sutton
Church, heard that the Canons of Wombridge had withdrawn two
processional candles which they were bound to maintain in the
Chancel of the said Church. The Parishioners, represented by
Roger Brusebon and two others, moved a suit in the Archidiaconal
Court against the Canons. A sentence releasing them from the
alleged obligation was given in full Chapter at Newport on Nov. 4,
1315, and certified by the Archdeacon's Official. 138

In 1341, though the Taxation of Sutton Church stood at 7 merks
(£4. 13*. 4rf.), the Assessors of the ninth, only rated the Parish at
£3. because the small tithes, oblations, glebe, and other spiritualities
of the Church went to make up the greater sum, and had nothing
to do with the ninth ; and because the Vicar had half-a-virgate of
land, and because four virgates of land lay untilled. 129

The Canons of Wombridge obtained other confirmations of their
Chartered and Impropriate rights at Sutton, viz. from Bishop Robert
(de Stretton), dated at Heywode, July 25, 1362, from Bishop John
(Bourghill), dated at Eccleshall Castle, Sept. 21, 1400, and from
Thomas (Fitz Alan), Archbishop of Canterbury, dated at Lambeth,
Feb. 8, 1401. 13 °

m Ibidem, No. xcix and c compared.

** Taxatio Papa Xick. p. 248.— Zk-
canatus Novi Burgi.

** WombridgeGharfo]ary,Ztt.£rocfofft
and Sutton, No. c?i. Dated at Edgmond,

May 8, 1320.

138 Ibidem, No. ex.

19 Inquuitione* Nonarum, p. 184.

m Wombridge Chart olary, TO. jBroc^m
and Sutton, Nos. cvij, cviij, cix.

SUTTON MADDOCK. 141

The Volar Ecclesiasticus of 1534-5, by Borne extraordinary
accident, omits to notice this Church under the Deanery of Newport.
The Prior of Wombridge acknowledges however his receipt of the
" tithes of the Church of Sutton Madok," amounting to £8. 6s. Sd.
per axnum. m

The Minister's Accounts of 1536-7, give the Ferm of this Bectory,
with the Tithes of Brockton, as together worth £A. per annum. 1 **

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

Radulf thb Clerk, the Incumbent of 1187, was probably the
last resident Rector of Sutton. He seems to have been followed by
the Deputies of Wombridge Priory, styled at first Chaplains or
Priests, and afterwards Vicars. Thus we have between 1194 and
1219 mention of Hugh, Chaplain of Sutton or of Brockton, and
also notices of one Richard, called indifferently Chaplain of
Sutton or Priest of Brockton.

In the next twelve years we hear of Philip the Chaplain as
an occupier of land at Harrington, and find him attesting deeds as
a Sir Philip, Chaplain of Sutton."

From 1231, for thirty years, we find repeated mention of
Nicholas, at first called Priest (Sacerdos), then Chaplain of Sutton,
and lastly Vicar of the same.

Then, between 1265 and 1280, Henry de Ideshale, Chaplain, a
benefactor to Wombridge Priory, seems to be identical with Henry,
Vicar of Sutton, and with " Sir Henry, Vicar of Brockton."

In the last twenty years of the Century > Sib William, Chaplain
of Sutton, occurs. 188

On April 12, 1302, the Bishop sequestered the Vicarage of
Sutton in the Archdeaconry of Salop, for some cause which does not
appear. The Dean of Newport is ordered, out of the income of the
Vicarage, to provide for due service of the Church.

Thomas, Vicar of Sutton Madok, having died January 7, 1330,
John de Optnton, Chaplain, is admitted to the Vicarage on
Feb. 18th following, at presentation of the Prior and Convent of

m Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 194. I Presentation by the Crown to Sutton

m Monattiean 9 '7^d9l 9 'No.u t Prior€Uu$
de Wombridge,

m Wombridge Chartulary, passim.
Mr. Dukes (Antiquities, p. 196) quotes
the Close Bolls of 80 Hen. Ill, for a

II. 19

Church. I cannot find the entry on the
original Roll ; but, whatever the authority
for such a Presentation, 1 think that tome
other Sutton must be meant.

142 STOCKTON.

Wombridge. Sir John de Opynton died Aug. 15, 1345, and on
December 23 following : —

John de Laweleye, Deacon, was admitted on the same presen-
tation. On his resignation, Dec. 22, 1351, Brother Thomas de
Eton, Canon of Wombrugg and Priest, was admitted on presen-
tation of his Convent. 134

Stockton*

Scoc (a village, or place of habitation) and tun (a town or
inclosure) are the two words hitherto supposed to enter into this
compound. 1

The redundancy of signification which thus arises suggests
however another etymology, and that more consistent with pro-
nunciation.

The Saxon word Sfcoc (with the unaccentuated or short o)
means "the stock " or "trunk of a tree" and so "wood" or
" fuel " generally.

Stockton therefore signifies "the town of thewood," and so involves
precisely the same ideas as another and still more common Saxon
name, now written Wootton or Wotton, but anciently Wudeton or
Wodeton.

Domesday thus notices the Manor in question. —

"The same Gerard holds Stochetone; and Hugo (holds it) of
him; Eduin and Ordui held it (in King Edward's time) for two
Manors, and were Free Men. Here is i hide geldable. There is
arable land sufficient for in ox-teams. In demesne there is half-a-
team, and (there are) i serf and i villain and i boor with half-a-team.
In King Edward's time the Manor was worth xn shillings (per
annum) : now it is worth mi shillings." *

I have no evidence of Hamo Peverel having had any concern in
Stockton as Successor of Gerard de Tornai. lake other Tornai

U4 Lichfield Register, sub annu.

1 Dugdalf* Warwickshire (Thomas), I * Domesday, fo. 259, a 1.
203, 340. I

8T0CKT0N.

143

Escheats, the Manor next appears as held in capite of the Crown,
and by Serjeantry of service at Shrawardine Castle.

The earliest Crown-Tenants had name from the place, but the
documents in which they occur are so little connected, that I
attempt no fuller account of their succession than will be implied
by citing those documents in chronological order.

About 1196, Adam de Stocton, with Robert and Gilbert his
Brothers, attests a Charter of the second William Fitz Alan to
Beyner de Lee. 8

At Michaelmas 1196, Adam de Stocton and Matilda his wife
had fined two merks with the King, that they might have trial
against Richard Fechie concerning half a Knight's- fee in Cupton in
Warwickshire. 4

At Michaelmas 1204, Herbert de Stocton had paid half a merk,
the sum assessed on 1 hide of land for King John's fifth scutage,
which (as I have said before) was levied on Tenants by Serjeantry
as well as upon Tenants by Knights' service.

At Michaelmas 1207, Herbert de Stocton had been amerced,
apparently by Justices of the Forest. The same thing had recurred
in 1209. 6

Comparing two Rolls of Tenures by Serjeantry, of date about
1211, 1 find it stated that Matilda de Stocton held land by service
of finding one serving foot-soldier with a bow, for ward of Shra-
wardine Castle. 6

About this time Robert de Stocton occurs as second witness of a
charter quoted under Badger, and the same Robert sat as a Juror
on a Forest Inquisition, of date about June 1220. 7

On the 13th of July 1243, a King's Writ ordered an Inquest to
be held as to the estate of Walter de Stocton, deceased. The Jury
(among whom were Walter de Kenbricton, William de Sutton,
and Philip de Stocton) found that Walter had held 4 virgates in
the trill of Stocton, by service of one foot-soldier with a bow and
arrows for 15 days at Montgomery; — that the tenure was worth

* Harl. MSS. 1896, fo. 253.
4 Sot. Pip. 8 Rio. I, Salop.

* Bot. Pip. 6, 9, 11 John, Salop.

6 Testa de Nevill, fo. 254, and Liber
Ember Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvij. Other less
accurate Bolls give the same redundant
evidence as to this Serjeantry, which
has already been remarked upon under
Brockton (supra, p. 94, note 4), viz.

that Herebert de Stoketon holds one hide
by Serjeantry whilst Matilda de Sutton
(sic) holds by service of finding a foot-
soldier for Castle guard. (Testa de Nevill,
fo. 879, Liber Ruber, fo. cxxiij). Two
phases of the same Tenure are evidently
embodied in one Boll.

7 Inquiettiones incerti temporis Hen. Ill,
No. 259.

144

8T0CKT0N.

20$. per annum; and that Richard de Stocton was son and heir of
the deceased. 8

On October 27, 1244, the King received the homage of the said
Richard, whose Belief was fixed at 20s. 9

Soon after this it was found that several persons throughout the
kingdom who held lands by Serjeantry, had alienated the same,
wholly or in part, without license of the Crown. A Commission
accordingly issued in 1246 to Henry de Wingeham, who was at the
same time appointed Escheator extra Trent, to make inquest into
these alienations. He with an associate Knight in each County,
and a Jury if he pleased, were to inquire into the state of all Ser-
jeantries.

Subsequently, and probably on receipt of Wingeham's reports, a
second Commission issued to Robert Passelewe, Archdeacon of
Lewes and Treasurer to King Henry III, in virtue of which he
visited very many Counties to "take fines" or "make arrentations"
of Seijeantries, that is to provide for the due fulfilment of the ser-
vices attached to every such tenure, and also to exact and fix an
annual rent in money as a composition for every illegal alienation*
Passelewe seems to have taken Shropshire early in his progress, at
least the Arrentations which he fixed here accrued from March
1247, while he is found to be in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon-
shire in April 1250.

The results of Passelewe's visit to Shropshire are preserved in
duplicate. It was found that the " Serjeantry of John le Bret
(which was formerly Henry de Stockton's, in Stockton, for which
he was bound to provide for the Lord King one serving foot-soldier
with bow and arrows, for fifteen days, at his own cost, in garrison
of Shrawardine Castle in time of war, which, service was afterwards
attorned to Montgomery Castle) was alienated altogether from the
right heirs/' It further appeared that Philip de Stocton held
three-fourths of a virgate, worth 4*. per annum, of the said aliena-
tion and that John le Bret held the residue thereof, being of 109.
annual value. —

John le Bret concluded the following Fine for himself and
the other Tenant, with the consent of the latter, viz. that they
would pay As. annually (to the Crown) and perform the prescribed
service. 10

• Inquisitions, 28 Hen. Ill, No. 3.

• Fines, i, 425.

» Testa de Nevill, folios 264, 270.
Henry de Stocton I imagine to hare been

the original Grantee of the Crown, Hying
at a period of which we hare no Record
likely to name him.

STOCKTON.

145

On the Shropshire Pipe-Boll of Michaelmas 1250, John le Bret's
obligations as Tenant of Henry de Stocton's Serjeantry are re-
peated, and he is put in charge for three-and-a-half years' arrears of
the 4*. rent agreed upon.

About 1251, an Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred speaks
of this Serjeantry as Richard de Stocton's, values it at 20*.
per annum, and notes its total alienation to John le Bret. 11

What became of the Alienator of this Serjeantry I do not find ;
but as late as 1259 an entry on the Pipe Boll charges Richard
Lord of Stockton with an amercement of 3*. 4rf. for some non-
attendance.

To return to John le Bret. — In 1250, Justices are appointed to
try a suit of novel disseizen which he had against Oliver, Parson of
Stocton Church, and others concerning a tenement in Stocton. 1 '

At the Assizes of January 1256, the Brimstree Jurors reported
John le Bret as failing in due attendance.

A Seigneury over these Tenants by Serjeantry seems to have
been granted to the Stranges about the time when the latter
established their interest in Sutton and Brockton. At the same
time John le Bret disappears as Tenant; for at the Assizes of October
1272, the Brimstree Jurors reported Philip de Say as holding Little
Stocton of Robert le Strange (of Sutton), in Serjeantry, for which
he paid the King 4*. per annum. And this Philip de Say (probably
identical with Philip de Stocton above mentioned) was Foreman
of the Jury which sat on Sept. 13, 1276, to inquire as to the estate
of Robert le Strange who had previously deceased. Again within a
few years the name of the Tenant of Stockton changes; for in
12 Edw. I (1283-4), Robert Body had the King's grant of Free-
Warren in Little Stocton, and in Herdwyke within the Hundred of
Ellesmere. 13 The Inquisition of 1284 gives a confused account of
this Manor, the result probably of Fulk le Strange, then a Minor,
holding it in capite together with Sutton and part of Brockton.
The Record first says that " Fulco Extraneus holds the Manor of
Stocton cum Brocton of the King in capite, by service of one
Knight for fifteen days, to go with the King into Wales at his own
cost ;" and that " the same Fulco pay 4*. per annum for purpresture."
It afterwards says that " Robert Body holds Little Stocton (by
serjeantry of finding one foot-soldier for forty days at his own cost
with a bow and four arrows) of the King in capite" 1 *

11 Ibidem, to. 275. | »» Sot. Cart. Calendar, p. 113.

n PaUmt, 84 Hen. ELI, doreo. I " Kirbtfs Quest. The alleged Knight's

146

STOCKTON.

Nov. 20, 1289, Robert Bodi of Stocton, and Hawise his wife,
purchased for seven merks the messuage and all the land which
Richard Fitz Yvo of Brocton had in the vill of Brocton. About
the same time Robert Bodi attests a Brockton Deed, whereby John,
the Clerk surrenders his Tenancy to Wombridge Priory. 15

The aggregate service and serjeantry reported by the Brimstree
Jurors of 1292 as due on Sutton, evidently includes Fulk le
Strangers particular liability in respect of Stockton.

At these Assizes however Robert Body the Tenant was questioned
as to his right of Free- Warren in his demesne lands at Stockton.
Not at first appearing, his alleged right of Warren was ordered to be
escheated, but he afterwards came forward and pleaded the King's
Charter, and so was dismissed sine die. 1 *

The Feodary of 1316, makes no distinct mention of Stockton,
evidently because it was deemed to be involved in Fulk le Strangers
Tenure of Sutton.

In Edward Ill's time the estates of Strange of Blackmere in this
quarter are described as including the Manors of Sutton Madoc,
Brokton, Norton, little Stokton, and Muchel Stokton; 17 and I have
somewhere seen the last place written as Chirche-Stockton.

EWDNESS.

This vill, probably a member of the Domesday Manor of Stockton,
became detached therefrom, whilst (in the twelfth century) both
were in the hands of the King.

It afterwards constituted a distinct Serjeantry, the service attached
to which was that the Tenant should accompany the Sheriff of
Shropshire when, twice every year, the latter conveyed the Ferm
or revenue of the County to the Exchequer, the King paying the
said Tenant's charges.

service and the duty of accompanying the
King into Wales must have been sug-
gested by the older and perhaps thus
modified tenure of Sutton. The 4*. pur-
presture was the arrentation due on
Stockton. Robert Body did not hold
in capite, nor was his service for forty
days, but only for fifteen.

u Wombridge Chartulary, ZYl.2?roc£o»,

No*, ii, li.

" Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, memb.
23.

V Inquisition, 37 Edw. HI, 2d Nos. 7.
Another writ relating to the same matter
(a grant of View of Frankpledge) seems to
mention in addition to these possessions
of Le Strange, the Manors of Ruyton,
Bekkebury, and Huggeford (Calendar,
vol. ii, p. 263). These never belonged *in
any way to Strange of Blackmere, and it
is evident that there has been some tam-
pering with the Record. The words
Ruyton and Bekkebury are written on
erasures.

8T0CKT0N.

147

Thus in 1211, was Walter d'Eudinas holding the Manor in
capite. 1 *

This is the same Walter d'Eudinas who has already appeared
attesting a Badger deed in 1227.

Before 1255, Ralph d'Eudinas was Tenant of this Serjeantry.
He seems to have enfeoffed the Prior of St. John's Hospital at
Brug in half-a-yirgate thereof. The Jurors of the Liberty of Brug
reported this alienation in that year. 19

13 Sept. 1276, Nicholas, Clerk of Eudinas, was a Juror on the
Inquest concerning the estate of Robert le Strange of Sutton and
Stockton.

I find no further mention of this Serjeantry or any probable
Tenants thereof. I conclude it to have been re-united to Le
Strangers Tenure.

STOCKTON CflCKCH.

I have no proof of a Church existing here before the thirteenth
Century, but there is a strong probability that the Foundation was
much earlier.

In 1291, the Church of Stocton with its Chapel (or Chapels) was
returned as annually worth £4. 13*. 4tf. besides a pension of 6*. 8rf.
which the Prior of St. Guthlac of Hereford received therefrom. 80

The only Chapel which I can suggest to be here indicated is
Boningale, which remains to this day a member of the Church of
Stockton.

Now Boningale, at the time of Domesday and for nearly two
centuries afterwards, was manorially a member of Higford, and the
latter was in the Parish of Stockton. The Lacis who held Higford
under the Norman Earl had, before Domesday, given that Manor
to one of their principal Feoffees: but at the same period (1085-6),
these Lacis were zealous in the endowment and re-establishment
of Hereford Priory. That House, dedicated to St. Guthlac, held
pensions afterwards in very many Churches of De Laci's Fief.

I doubt not therefore that De Laci, Seigneural Lord of Higford,
was Founder or Co-Founder of Stockton Church, at a period very
shortly subsequent to Domesday, and that St. Guthlac's pension was

» TeHa de NeviU, folio 264. One
whose name is written Walter de Detunes
a juror to try causes of Grand
at Salop in 1221. I doubt not

that he was the individual under no-
tice.

" Rot. Sund. ii, 59.

" Pope Nick. Taxation, p. 248.

148

STOCKTON.

either a composition in lieu of tithes of Higford, previously granted
to the Priory, but afterwards resigned to this Church, or else that it
was an acknowledgment reserved by the Prior on his quitting some
right of Advowson at Stockton or Boningale, of which he may have
had a previous grant.

In 1341, the Taxation of Stockton Church stood at seven-and-a-
half merks (£5), a sum which included the aforesaid pension.

The Parish was however assessed only at five merks to the ninth,
the usual deductions in respect of small tithes, glebe, offerings, and
other spiritualities having been allowed in reckoning the assess-
ment, as also a murrain which had recently destroyed the sheep
of the district.* 1

In 1534, the Rectory of Stoketon with the Chapel of Bonynghal
in the Deanery of Newport, was valued at £14, which sum was
chargeable with 6*. $d. for Procurations and 2s. Sd. for Synodals,
but with no pension of the kind before described. 29

EABLY INCUMBENTS.

Nicholas, Chaplain of Stocton, attests a deed already cited
under Badger, and which passed early in the thirteenth Century. He
will hardly have been more than a Deputy of the then Incumbent.

Oliver, Parson of Stocton, has also been mentioned under date
of 1250, and must be identical with that Oliver de Stocton who
stands first witness to a nearly contemporary deed of Madoc de
Sutton. 28

William de Hugfoed, Clebk, was instituted Hector of this
Church by Commission, on May 31, 1321. On Oct. 30 following, he
had license to study for a year, and on Nov. 5, had letters dimissory
for Junior Orders and the Orders of Subdeacon and Deacon. On
March 18, 1323, he had further license for a year's study and
non-residence, and on Feb. 14, he had a still further dispensation
for another year, to commence on March 18 following. 8 * He
occurs as Rector about 1343.

Walter de Hugford, Rector of Stockton, died in 1369, and on
November 12, in that year, Philip de Hablev, Priest, late Rector of
Stirchley, was presented by Walter de Hugford, Lord of Hugford.
He died in 1379 on the 4th of July, in which year Master Thomas
de Kyrkeby, Priest, was presented by William de Hugford. 25

21 Inquisition** Nonarum, p. 184.
9 Valor Eccletiattictu, iii, 187.
a Supra, p. 120.

34 Lichfield Registers, tub annis.
» Blakeway's MSS.

149

gftrtgjjtom

The etymology of this word is obvious. — At an unrecorded period,
earlier than the days of King Edward the Confessor, the " town"
was possessed or founded by some Saxon " Alberic." The latter
name, variously written and pronounced as Alberic, Albrecht,
Albert, or Aubrey, is fundamentally the same, and has its exact
equivalent in the Latin word Praclartu or in the Greek n*p*pav>jc.
i The Manor is thus described in Domesday : —

The same Normannus holds Albricstone. Algar and Oodhit held
it (in time of King Edward) for two Manors. Here is one hide
and-a-half geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for nn ox-
i teams. In demesne are in such teams ; and (there are) xm serfs

and in villains and in boors with i team. Here is a wood which
will fatten 100 swine : but at present it is in the King's hand. In
time of King Edward, the Manor was valued at xxi shillings (per
annum). Its present value is xvi shillings. He (Norman) found it
waste." l

I think that the first- named of the two Saxons, who had had an
interest in Albrighton must have been Algar, Earl of Mercia. His
possessions in the neighbouring County of Staffordshire were
extensive, and included Pattingham, a Manor not far distant from
Albrighton. Earl Algar' s Staffordshire Fief was generally retained
by King William the Conqueror in demesne. Hence perhaps, the
Domesday mention of a wood at Albrighton, so singularly excepted
from the jurisdiction of the Palatine Earl of Shropshire. 2

Norman Venator (for such was the designation of the Domesday
Lord of Albrighton) held seven Manors under Earl Roger. His
profession, perhaps also the service by which he held his lands, is
implied by his name. With his Brother Roger, also called Venator,
he has been mentioned as attending the Consecration of Quatford
Church in 1086, and he further appears to have been living after
the succession of Earl Hugh (1093), and to have been a Benefactor

1 Domesday, fo. 259, a. 2.
1 This wood was, I doubt not, retained
by the King with a yiew to the integrity

or enlargement of the neighbouring Forest
of Brewood ; of which, as a Royal Forest,
I have yet to speak.

ii. 20

150 ALBRIGHTON.

to Shrewsbury Abbey. The locality of two of his Domesday
Manors is somewhat uncertain, but in the five which can be
better identified he seems to have been succeeded by the family of
Pichford, whom I therefore conclude to have been his heirs. These
Pichfords continued for two centuries to hold the Fief of Norman
Venator, immediately of the Crown. Albrighton was its reputed
Caput, and the whole constituted a tenure held by service of one
Knight's-Fee, and was so assessed to the various Scutages and Aids
which were levied during that period.

Of Ralph de Pichford, who distinguished himself and added to his
possessions by services rendered to King Henry I at the siege of
Brag in 1102, I have already spoken. All that I can further say
of him is, that he attests a very ancient deed, in the time of Henry 1
or Stephen, which concerns land in this neighbourhood. Mention
has also been made, under Ryton, of Richard and Engelard, pre-
sumed to have been the two sons of Ralph de Pichford. Richard
de Pichford seems to have died before 1157, leaving a son and
heir, another Richard, whose wardship (he being a Minor and a
Tenant in capite) was then purchased of the Crown by his Uncle
Engelard.

Though, as will presently appear, this minority must have been
very brief, it left Engelard de Stretton possessed of a considerable
interest in his Nephew's lands. I shall quote instances of this
elsewhere, but here will mention only the following peculiar cir-
cumstance. — In the year 1167 (when Richard de Pichford had long
attained his majority), the town of Albrictonehad been amerced in
the sum of one merk for some breach of the Forest-Laws, which had
been adjudicated upon in the recent Iter of Alan de Nevill. The
fine is however described on the Pipe-Roll as being set upon the
town of " Albrictone Engerardi" i. e. Engelard's Albrighton, as
though Engelard was then its owner, while it is clear, from other
evidence, that if still interested there, he could only have been so
interested as a Tenant.

This Richard de Pichford, of whom we are principally speaking,
was he, who having acquired or inherited an interest in the neigh-
bouring Manor of Cospelford (Cosford), granted to the Abbey of
Buildwas the whole service of Richard Crasset therein. 8

Richard de Pichford's grant to Haghmon Abbey is all that I can
further say of him. It has been already set forth, and, at the time

3 Monastico*, t, 859 ; xtl

AL BRIGHTON.

151

of its passing (before 1172), Hugh, the son and heir of Richard,
was old enough to be a consenting party. 4

On Richard's death, in or before 1176, this same Hugh succeeded
him, and, whether a Minor or not, obtained his Livery by pay-
ment of 100 shillings relief to the Crown. 6

In 1185, Hugh de Pikeford had been fined 40s. by Justices of
the Forest, for not producing those for whom he was Surety. He
had paid the fine, and was quit.

At Michaelmas 1194 the Scutagefor King Richard's redemp-
tion having been collected, Hugh de Pichford had paid 20*. on that
account, the sum assessed on every Knight's-Fee held in capite.

In 1195 he was assessed similarly for King Richard's second
Sctdage in support of the French wars. This Charge is entered on
the Sheriffs Roll of 1196, and had been paid before Michaelmas
1197.

At the latter period Bang Richard's third Scutage had been put
in charge. It was at the same rate for each Knight's Fee and was
again for the Army of Normandy. It was assessed upon, and paid
by, Hugh de Pichford.

In the years 1199, 1201-2-3-4-5-6, he was successively charged
with the seven first scutages of King John; but some of these
assessments imply a composition in lieu of personal service, and are
in excess of the current assessment on a single Knight's-Fee, e. g.
he was charged 40*. in 1199, though the current rate was £1. 6s. 8rf.
per fee ; he was charged five merks (£3. 6*. 8d.) in 1203, the
rate being again £1. 6s. Sd.; he was charged six merks in 1204,
the rate being two-and-a-half merks ; and he was charged three
merks in 1206, the rate being one-and-a-half merks.

Thus much as an instance of the heavy and constant exactions
with which King John impoverished and disgusted the Feudatories
of his Crown. —

Amongst Fines made in the year 1199, with Hugh de Nevill,
Justice of the Forest, I find one of twelve merks contracted by
Hugh de Pichford. It was, that he might assart forty acres of his
own land at Pichford and twenty acres in his wood of Bruwude
(Brewood).

In 121 1, he was returned as a Knight, holding one fee by military
service, of the Crown, his lands being worth £&. per annum. 6

4 Supra, Vol. I, p. 358.
« Rot. Pip. 22 Henry II, Salop. The
Pipe Rolls are also my authority for the

succeeding statements of the text.
6 Testa de Nevill, fo. 252.

152 ALBRIGHTON.

And about this time he died, leaving by his wife Burga, daughter
and sole heir of Ralph de Baskerville, 7 a son Ralph, who succeeded
him.

I have already noticed this Ralph, as having succeeded about
1212, to his Tenure by Serjeantry at Little Brug. In 1214, when
the Scutage of Poitou was put in charge, at the rate of three merks
on each Knight's -Fee, this Ralph paid his due proportion of £2. on
the same. 8 And thus he continued to be assessed to various
Scutages and Aids in the time of Henry III, and in manner
following.

In 1218, he is charged two merks on the first Scutage of that
King's reign ; in 1221, 10*. on the Scutage of Biham. In 1224,
he was acquitted of the Scutage of Montgomery, probably in
respect of personal service, but assessed at the current rate (two
merks), to that of Bedford. In 1229, he was similarly assessed to
the Scutage of Keri, and in 1230, at the higher rate of three merks
to that of Brittany; but Ralph Fitz Nicholas had obtained the
King's acquittance of half this charge in his own favour.

In 1231, Ralph de Pichford is assessed three merks to the
Scutage of Poitou, and in 1232, £1. to that of El vein, each being
at the current rate for a Knight's Fee.

In 1235, he was charged two merks for the Aid levied on
marriage of the King's Sister. 9 Half of this he paid in September
1235, " by hand of Geoffrey, Provost of Pichford/' whilst the balance
was discharged at Easter 1236, by Adam de Pichford. 10

In 1245, he was duly assessed £1. to the Aid, for marriage of
the King's Daughter, and in 1246, paid three merks, the sum
chargeable on each Knight's-Fee for the Scutage of Gannok. 11

Returning to an earlier period for other incidents in the life of
Ralph de Pichford, I find him in November 1221, as a Juror of
causes, tried at Shrewsbury by Grand Assize. In 1232, he fined

7 By this marriage, Hugo de Pichford
and his wife became, in 5 John (1208 -4),
mesne Tenants of a Knight's Fee in Her-
berbury and Chesterton (Warwickshire)
held of the Earls Ferrers. See DugdaWs
Warwickshire, under 'Herberbury' (p.
854, Thomas's Edition) for further par-
ticulars.

8 Sol. Pip. 16 John, Salop. The
name of Hugo de Pichford had in the
first instance been entered on this Roll, '

but the name "Hug" was crossed out
and "Bad" written over apparently by
the same Clerk who engrossed the Boll.
In the reign of Henry III, such accuracy
came to be disregarded.

9 Rot. Pip. de eisdem anms, Salop.

10 Testa de Nevill, fos. 279, 277, the
proper order of the documents being in-
verted on the Record.

11 Sot Pip. de eisdem anms.

ALBRIOHTOK.

153

40*. with the Crown for the privilege of holding a Market and
Fair at his Manor of Albrihtton, and obtained the King's Charter
thereof. 18

A document of the year 1234, exhibits this Ralph de Ficheford
as staking largely for some contingent advantage likely to result
from an Irish Wardship. He gave the King three hundred merks
to have marriage of the heirs, and custody of the lands, late John
Fitz Deremot's, in Ireland, until the said heirs should be of age.
The King, having taken security for payment of this fine in
England, enjoined Maurice Fitz Gerold, Justice of Ireland, to give
Ralph the necessary seizin. The King's writ bears date at Reading
22d August 1234; and on 16th Feb. following, another writ issued
to the Barons of the Exchequer, allowing that payment of Ralph de
Picheford's fine should be at the rate of twenty-five merks half-
yearly. 18

Tenure-Rolls of the years 1240 and 1251, exhibit Ralph de
Pichford's Tenancy in Albrighton as immediately under the Crown, 14
but without further particulars, except that the former Roll in-
cludes Ryton with Albrighton, a circumstance already remarked
upon.

On Oct. 5, 1252, Ralph de Pichford was dead, for then did Ralph
Fitz Nicholas fine 100 merks with the King for custody of his land
and heir, as well as for marriage of the latter. 16

The Inquest on his death does not seem to have been held till the
following year, that is, in obedience to the King's writ of diem
chnmt extremum, dated 20th April, in the 37th year of his reign.
Besides Ralph de Pichford's Tenures at Dunethe and Lynne in
Ireland, and those at Pichford and Little Brug, the Jurors found
him to have held Albricton of the King, by service of one knight
for eight days, and that John, his son and next heir, was sixteen
years of age.

I shall show under other Shropshire localities the incompleteness
of this Inquisition, and that Ralph de Pichford was possessed of
interests not therein enumerated. 16

In 1254, he, or rather his estate, was charged 40*. to the Aid for
Knighting the King's eldest son ; and a similar sum in 1260 for the

* Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. Ill, Salop j Rot.
Cart. 16 Hen. Ill, memb. 15.

n Eat. Fin. rol. i, pp. 268, 274; and
Rot. Pip. 18 Hen. Ill, Salop.

" Tert* de NeviU, foe. 206, 274.

» Rot. It*, ii, 141.

16 Out of Shropshire he was holding
in 1252 the Ferrera' Fee at Herberbury
above mentioned. (DngdaWt Warwick-
shire, p. 364.)

154

ALBRIGHTON.

Scutage of Wales. 17 Meanwhile John de Pichford, though occurring
as a Minor in 1255, must have arrived at his full age. I find little
to say of him during the troubled period which ensued. When the
King's army stood summoned to meet at Worcester, on July 1,
1277, John de Pychford, Knight, acknowledged his service due on
a Knight's Fee at Albricton, and was ready to discharge it in
person. 18

On March 27, 1278, he was among the principal Knights of the
County, who made perambulation between the Bishop of Hereford's
lands in Esthampton, and those of Peter Corbet in Wentnor. 19

On January 28, 1281, he was one of the four Knights who made
Inquest aud report as to the ruinous condition of Brug Castle.

The King's Army being under summons to meet at Rhuddlan on
Aug. 2, 1282, against the Welsh, John de Pichford attended in
acknowledgment of his Tenure, but afterwards departed in conse-
quence of infirmity. 20

In 1284, he is entered as holding the Manor of Albricton with
Hunfreyston, Wystan (Whiston), and Bispeston (Bishton), by one
Knight's Fee, and by accompanying the King into Wales in time of
war, for forty days at his own charges. 81

In 1285, the Escheator was ordered to seize into the King's hand,
the estate of John de Pichford deceased. 22 The King's writ of
diem clausit extremum, dated April 13, 1285, and addressed to the
same Officer, resulted in an Inquisition held at Pichford, on the
25th of the same month. The Jurors estimated the vill of Albryton,
held in capite by one Knighf s fee, as realizing £5. 14*. 8rf. per
annum. They also gave account of the tenure of the deceased at
Pichford, and reported his son and heir Ralph to be of full age.
This Inquisition proved to be unsatisfactory, as well it might. The
King, in a writ, dated May 6 following, orders his Escheator to
"make more diligent enquiry," and a second Inquest sat at
Albrighton on the 24th of the same month. The Manor of
Albrighton, with the Advowsons of Albrighton and By ton, were in
this instance estimated at £10. 8#. 6d. annual value, and the Jurors
gave account also of Tenures at Lee Brockhurst and Cantlop, and

" Sot Pip, 38 and 44 Hen. Ill, Salop.
In each case the assessment is charged to
the name of Ralph de Pichford. At this
period the Scutage Rolls are no longer a
guide as to the Christian name of an
individual Tenant in capite.

18 Parliamentary Writs, i, 203.
M Hereford Register (Cantilupe), fo.
xxij, a.

» Parliamentary Writs, i, 233, 237.

41 Kirtys Quest.

33 Originalia, 13 Edw. I, memb. 6.

ALBRIGHTON. 155

_ ■

of a rent payable by Philip de Beckbury (one of themselves), all of
which had been the property of the deceased. 28

Margaret, wife of John de Pichford, survived him, and had her
dower both in Albrighton and Pichford. In 1292, she was sued for
estovers in Pichford Wood, by Richard de Eton, 24 and at the same
time, under designation of " Margaret de Albrygton," was reported
by the firimstree Jurors to hold £7. of lands in Albrygton of the
King in capite, and to be, as to any second marriage, at the King's
disposal. 26

In 1304, Margaret de Picheford complained to * the King of
having suffered a redisseizin at the hands of Roger Carles and
William the Beadle of Brimstree, from whom, in the King's Court
at Bruges, she had recovered seizin of eleven merks annual rent in
Albrighton. The usual writ to the Sheriff issued accordingly, viz.
to examine into the truth of the complaint, and if it were well
grounded, to arrest the Defendants. 20

I must now speak of Ralph de Pichford, son and heir of John, as
of the last of his line who had any interest in Albrighton. In
1292, he was reported by the Brimstree Jurors as holding a Knight's
Fee, being of full age, and yet not a Knight, whereupon he was put
down as in misericordid. He was also a Defaulter in due atten-
dance at the Assizes then held ; but his right of assizing bread and
beer, and of holding a Market and Fair at Albrighton being called
in question, he came forward and pleaded the Charter of King
Henry III, which granted the said market and Fair to Ralph, his
Ancestor. He also submitted that the other privileges in question
were appurtenant to those thus granted. Both pleas seem to have
been admitted by the Court. 27

On May 31, 1295, styling himself Lord of Albrighton, this Ralph
grants to William de Parco de Ettingestal, two Burgages in the
town of Albrighton, which he (Ralph) had of the Escheat ofYsabel
le Persone of Albrighton. — To hold with right of common pasture,
at a rent of one rose, payable on the feast of St. John Baptist's
Nativity. 28

Pursuant to the King's Writ, dated at Portsmouth May 27, 1297,

9 Inquisition*, 13 Edw. I, No. 14.

* Dukes's Antiquities, p. 288.

* Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, raomb.
22.

* OriginaUa, i, 136.
v Placito Corona, 20 Edw. I, memb. oroes-crosslets, a cinque-foil voided.

22.

■ Blakeway MSS. from Otley Evidence*.
The deed is tested by John de Beumes,
JohnUmfrey, Nicholas Carles, John Clerk
of Bishton, John Fits Henry of Bishton.
The Seal has a coat of arms — Semee of

156

ALBRIGHTON.

Ralph de Picheford was returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire as
one of those who held twenty Librates of lands and rents in the
County, and who consequently, were under summons to muster at
London on July 7 following, with horses and arms, ready to accom-
pany the King over sea, 29

This is the latest notice which I have of Ralph de Pichford, ere
yet he dissipated his fine inheritance. Within three years of
this time he sold his Manor of Albrighton to John, Baron Tregoz
of Ewyas Harold (Heref) ; and the latter dying on August 21, 1300,
was found by Inquisition to have been fully seized thereof. 80

John de Tregoz had had two daughters, Clarice and Sibil.
Clarice the elder, having been wife of Roger de la Warre and
Mother of John de la Warre, was at this time deceased : Sibil the
younger was still living and the wife of Sir William Grandison.
John de la Warre and the said Sibil were therefore found to be
Coheirs of Sir John Tregoz. A suit arose between them as to
partition of his Estates, which was finally settled in 1302, by award
of Parliament. 81 Thus did the Manor of Albrighton fall to the
estate of John de la Warre.

In the year 1303, John de la Warre memorialized King Edward I,
as to certain privileges which he claimed by prescription in this
Manor, viz. View of Frank-pledge, a market every Tuesday, and a
Fair of four days' duration (the vigil, the day of, and the two
days succeeding the Feast of the Translation of St. Thomas the
Martyr, ». e. July 6, 7, 8, and 9, in each year). The King issued
a writ of Certiorari to the Sheriff, who, after assembling a Jury at
Donington, on June 25, reported that Ralph de Pichford, who Bold
the Manor to Sir John Tregoz, had the said right of Market, and
a right of Fair for three days, also View of Frank-pledge twice in
the year over his own Burgesses, but not over the other Tenants
of the Manor, — that the said Balph exercised these privileges
all the time while he was Lord, and that so his Ancestors had done
from time whereof memory was not. 38

In conformity with this report, the King's Charter issued in the
same year, limiting the Fair to the 6th, 7th, and 8th days of July,
and fixing that two Courts for the View of Frank-pledge should be
held in the Quinzaines of Easter and Michaelmas annually. 88

The Feodary of 1316, duly returns John de la Ware as Lord of

» Parliamentary Write, i, 291.

» Inquisitions, 28 Edward I, No.

43.

■ Parliamentary Writ*, i, 131.
« Inquisitions, 31 Edw. J, No. 53.
» Sot Cart. 31 Edw. I, Nos. 24, 25.

ALBRIGHTON. 157

Albrighton, 84 but I must refer elsewhere for an account of his
career, civil and military, as well as for the annals of the great
Baronial house which he represented. 36

I add some extracts relating to the Under-Tenants of this
Manor. —

In 1180, Siward son of Siward is assessed 2*. for purpresture.**

In 1188, Siward de Albrinton and Richard de Albrinton had
each paid an amercement of Is. to the Sheriff of Staffordshire.

In 1228, Ely as de Aunbritun and William Russel of Brockton
are Sureties for a second William Russel.

Jan. 1256, Robert Fitz Agnes de Albritton is a Juror for Brim-
stree Hundred at Salop Assizes. Thomas de Albricton is also a
Juror in a Donington law-suit.

About 1261, William Champeneys of Albriton is on a local
Jury.

Jan. 1270, Nicholas Kareles and Burgia his wife and Ranulf de
Albryton and Alice his wife sold land in Donington to Hugh de
Beaumes.

Sept. 1272, at Salop Assizes, Nicholas Careles was a Juror for
Brimstree Hundred. He occurs also on Juries of April 16, 1273,
and April 25, 1285, at Astley- Abbots and Pichford.

At the Assizes of October 1292, Nicolas Carles and Adam le
Serjant of Albriton were on the Brimstree Jury.

May 31, 1295, Nicholas Careless is a witness ; and July 11, 1296,
June 6, 1300, and June 12, 1305, Adam le Serjant occurs on
Juries, accompanied in the last instance by Walter, Clerk of Albriton.

Roger Careles, whom I take to have been son of Nicholas, seems
to have Dettered the fortunes of his family. —

As early as November 1293, that is in the lifetime of Nicholas,
he was Fermor of the great Manor of Claverley under the Crown.
He appears again in that position in 1296. He has already been
mentioned under dates of 1304, 1316, and 1318, and his Grant of
Free- Warren in the latter year extended to lands in Albrighton,
Ryton, Whiston and Boningale.

On 30 Dec. 1322, as Custos of certain escheated lands in Wor-
cestershire and Shropshire, he is ordered to restore those belonging
to Hugh de Mortimer. 87

M Parliamentary Writ*, vol. iv, p. 399.
* Ibidem, pp. 1682-3, and Dugdatfe
Baronage, rol. ii, pp. 15, 16.
■ Placitalbreeta, Salop, No. 1. The

preceding name on this Boll is that of
Morinus, who is assessed 1*. for purpree*
fare in Dunninton (Donington).
* Parliamentary Write, iv, 642.

II. 21

158

ALBRIGHTON.

In 13 Ed. II (1319-20), he was a Commissioner for letting waste
lands in the King's Manor of Ellesmere. 88

His attestations of Charters during this period are frequent. All
that I need further say of him shall presently be related in my
account of Albrighton Church, to which he was a great Benefactor.

ALBBIGHTON CHUECH.

The earliest notice which I have of a Church here is only
inferential, and consists in the mention of Nicholas, Priest of
Albriton, about a.d. 1186-7. 89 Some Architectural remains indi-
cate quite as early a period for the foundation.

In 1291, the Church of Albryhton, in the Deanery of Newport
and Archdeaconry of Salop, was taxed at £5. 6s. Sd. 40

About the time when Ralph de Pichford sold his Manor of
Albrighton to Sir John de Tregoz, he sold the AdvowBon of the
Church to Walter de Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry.
The latter sale had for some cause or other to be confirmed by
Fine, and that Fine was levied by special order of the King. 41 It
bears date at York on the quinzaine of St. Hilary (Jan. 27) 1301,
and purports to be between the Bishop as Plaintiff (querentem),
and Ralph dePicheford, Defendant (impedientem), of two acres of
land in Albrighton, and the Advowson of the Church, whereof was
a plea of warranty of charter. Ralph acknowledged the Bishop's
right as of his own (Ralph's) gift, — to hold of the Chief Lords of
the Fee. For this the Bishop gave one hundred merks ; but an
Indorsement on the Fine states that William de Grandisone with
Sibil his wife and John de la Ware put in their claim. 48

Bishop Langton' s object in this and other purchases in Shropshire
shall be spoken of elsewhere. —

The troubles which beset him about this time were probably

» OrxginaUa, i, 260.
88 Supra, p. 112, note.

40 Pope Nich. Tax. p. 248.

41 lines, 29 Edw. I, Salop. This Fine
is particularly instructive as to the Con-
veyancing Practice of the period. It was
not the sale itself nor an accompaniment
thereof, hut a subsequent assurance of
Title. This we learn from the language
used in the Bishop's first presentation to
the Church which took place seven months
before the Fine was levied.

43 Apponunt elameum nmm. — I suppose

that they disputed the right of sale, as
Joint Lords of the Fee, pending the par-
tition of Tregoz* lands, and that they had
an interest in the matter. Strangers to a
Fine, deeming themselves to have a right-
ful claim on the premises conveyed, were
allowed five years after levy of the Fine,
wherein they might challenge it. This
time was extended in certain cases ; hut,
in general, a Fine which had stood for
AVe years without question barred all
subsequent claim.

ALBRIGHTON. 159

subversive of still greater designs than some which he actually
accomplished* He retained the Advowson of Albrighton for a very
short period, and Sir John de la Warre presented to the Church
in 1807.

On Dec. 10th, 1326, an Inquest was ordered to ascertain if it
would be to the loss of the Crown, should the King allow John de
la Warre to grant an acre of land in Albriton and the Advowson of
the Church to the Abbot and Convent of Dore, — the said Convent
to provide three Monks as Chaplains to do daily service in the
Church of Dore Abbey for the soul of said John and his Ancestors.
A Jury which sat at Claverley on Jan. 8, 1327, reported that the
proposed grant would not injure the Crown; that John de la Warre
held the Manor of Albrighton in capite by one Knight's fee ; that
the Church was worth £20. per annum, that the said John* had
various other estates, such as the Castle of Ewias Harald, the Manor
of Manchester worth £200. a year, &c. &c., in Lincolnshire,
Gloucestershire, and Northamptonshire. 43

On May 2, 1332, a King's Writ orders a Jury to inquire
whether it would be to the King's injury if Roger Careles had
license to grant a messuage, sixty acres of land, and 20s. annual
rent in Albrighton to a Chaplain, who should perform daily service
in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and for the souls of said Roger
and all the faithful departed, at the Altar of the same Virgin in the
Church of St. Mary at Albrighton.

The Jury which sat at Shrewsbury on June 10 following, re-
ported favourably of the proposed grant ; that the land, &c., were
held of John le Wares, Lord of Albrighton, by annual service of a
rase; that the whole was worth 33*. 4d. per annum; that a
messuage, two carucates of land and certain rents would remain to
Roger in Albrighton and Ritton (Ryton) after the proposed
Conveyance ; that these last premises were held of John de la Ware
by service of 6*. annually, and that they were amply sufficient to
discharge all customs and services due thereon. 44

In 1341, the Church of Albrighton stood at the old Taxation of
eight merks (£5. 6s. 8tf.), but the Parish was assessed only at five
merks, for the Ninth of its Corn, Wool, and Lamb. The reasons
of the difference were, because the Abbot of Buildwas had three
carucates of land in the Parish on which he did not pay corn-tithe,
but 10*. in lieu thereof; also because the glebe, offerings, small

« Inqmmtumt, 20 Edward II, No. I « Inquisitions, 6 Edw. in, 2d Nos.
4& No. 115.

160 ALBRIGHTON.

tithes, tithes of Mills, and other Spiritualities were very valuable,
and did not belong to the Ninth proposed to be collected. 4 *

In 1534, the Vicarage of Albrighton (of which Thomas Wedouse,
Clerk, was then Incumbent) was valued at £6. per annum, chargeable
with 80. for Procurations, and 2s. for Synodals. The Abbot of Dore
also, at the same period, returned the Rectory as worth £6. 13*. 4d.
gross annual value. 40

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

After Nicholas, Priest of Albriton in 1186-7, 1 find none till
William db Picheford, — collated to the Church by Bishop Walter
de Langton on June 4, 1300. The Advowson belonging to the said
Bishop by purchase (ex adquisito). The Archdeacon of Salop was
to induct.

Ingelard de Warlete, Priest, had possession of the Church
committed to him by the Bishop's Vicar, " on Nov. 30, 1307, at
presentation of Sir John la Warre Knight/' The Presentee was
to hold it as " commended to him " (sub titulo commendacionis)
" according to the Constitution."

May 26, 1308, Sir Ingelard de Warle was canonically instituted
through Adam de la More his Proctor, who took the oaths in his
name.

June 10, 1308, the Church of Mukleston was conceded to the
same Ingelard, " for lawful cause, according to the constitution of
Gregory, to hold sub titulo commendacionis"* 7

John Merton, Clerk, was presented by King Edward II, by
Letters Patent, dated at York 9 Feb. 1319, by reason of the lands
&c. of Bishop Walter de Langton having been late in the King's
hand. 48 This presentation was evidently on the false assumption

45 InquisUiones Nonarum, p. 184. It meant to except the Abbot's lands and

does not appear at first why the Abbot's
Modus in lieu of corn-tithe was an argu-
ment in diminution of the Ninth, which
was a tax upon corn specifically, and
which proposed to consider the tenth of
corn usually paid by a Parish to the
Church as an equivalent to the ninth of
corn now to be paid to the King. Con-
sequently if the Abbot paid lOs.per annum
to theBeotors of Albrighton he should now
pay apparently 10*. or (if his modus were
a beneficial one) even a greater sum to the
ninth. Perhaps however the truth of the
matter is that the Assessors of the ninth

modus altogether. He was not assessed
to the Tax in some other instances.

The Abbot of Buildwas' land in the
Parish was Cosford Grange.

46 Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 186, 33.

47 Lichfield Begister (Langton), folios
18, 27 b, 28 b, 29.

48 Patent, 12 Edw. II, p. 1, memb. 2.
It had been the honour of Bishop Lang-
ton to incur the malevolence of Piers
Gaveston, the infamous favourite of
Edward II. He had not only been
under forfeiture but in prison. (Vide
Anglia Sacra, i, 441-2.)

ALBRIGHTON.

161

that Langton was still Patron of the Church ; but though I do not
find it cancelled, I discover that on July 1, 1319, one Robert,
Rector of this Church, had license of non-residence for purposes of
study. This probably was the same with Robert de Arden, Priest,
who, on July 12, 1323, exchanged this preferment for that of —

Philip de Warle, Deacon, late Rector of Clopton (Lincoln
Diocese) . . The latter was instituted here on presentation of Sir John
le Ware, Knight. On Aug. 17, 1323, he had license for a year's
non-residence, and again on July 2, 1325 ; and for two years on
Aug. 29, 1328, being in each instance styled Rector of the Church
of Albrighton.

John de Aston, Chaplain, was admitted to the Vicarage of the
Church of Albrighton " newly founded" 4 » on the 18th Dec. 1329,
at presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Dore. He, or rather
one written as Sir William de Aston, vacated the Vicarage by
death on Nov. 9, 1332 ; and on Nov. 23 following —

William Anseyn, Priest, was admitted on the same presenta-
tion.

Reginald de Chetwynd seems to have been the next Vicar, for
on January 27, in the 31st year of Bishop Roger de Northburg
(i. e. 1353), that Prelate appoints William, Rector of Ryton, to be
Coadjutor to the said Reginald who was " worn out with old age
and infirmity." Sir Reginald de Chetwynd having however spon-
taneously resigned in the same year : —

Henry, son op William le Smtth of Albryton, Priest, was
admitted on Oct. 17, at presentation of the Cistercian Abbey of
St. Mary of Dore. 60

ARCHITECTURAL AND MONUMENTAL REMAINS.

Albrighton Church has a Western Tower, the lower part of which
belongs to the twelfth century ; the upper part, from its similarity
to Shiflhal, I should attribute to the fourteenth.

The East Window of the Chancel is a curious specimen of the

" The Vicarage was newly founded, not
the Church, i. e. the Abbey of Dore had ob-
tained an appropriation of the Rectory.

» Lichfield Registers, sub omnia. — I
should observe that these last two entries
are given with the year a. d. 1861 as
their date. They should be 1862 and

1368 respectively, for Jan. 27, 1862, and
81° of Bishop Roger are consistent dates,
reckoning the ecclesiastical year to begin
at Lady Day, as it did in these Registers.
The correction of the second entry follows
from the first ; and both will fall under
the year 1363 of modern reckoning.

162 ALBBIGHTON.

Decorated class, with a transom, — a feature rarely found in any
style except the Perpendicular. The head of the Window has rich
flowing tracery.

J. L. Petit.

During some recent and very extensive alterations of this Church,
it became necessary to reduce the floor of the South Aisle to what
would appear to have been its original level. In removing the soil
an Altar-Tomb was discovered, lying buried about eighteen inches
below the surface.

It has been carefully preserved, and placed outside the Church
in a situation approximating to its former one.

It is of Stone, and embellished with numerous Coats of Arms, the
bearings on all of which can be satisfactorily made out. This
Tomb will have been thus unceremoniously buried more than two
Centuries since ; for neither Sandford, in his Church-Notes of 1660,
nor Johnson, in 1699, make any mention of it, whereas the latter
gives very full particulars of another and in may respects very
similar Tomb at Albrighton.

This last was of Marble and is nowhere to be found, whilst the
dishonour shown to the buried Tomb has resulted in its preservation;
for it is constructed of not very durable stone, and is at the same
time very ancient. The Arcade running round its four sides proves
its original position to have been isolated from any wall or Niche.
The Pillars and Arches which form this Arcade belong to the "Early-
English n period of Architecture and to the thirteenth Century. —
Altar-Tombs of that date, in memory of private persons, are by no
means common. I offer full particulars of this one, rather for its
curiosity and possible import in our future investigations than
that 1 am at present able to declare in whose memory it was first
erected. —

The upper slab is occupied by a fleury cross whose lower limb
extends the whole length of the tomb.

In the centre-point of this cross is this coat, —
i. Three Chevronels.

Above and below the right limb of the cross are these, —
i. Bendy of ten pieces.
ii. Two Chevrons.

Above and below the left limb are, —
i. Three Fleur-de-lys.
ii. Two Bars and (perhaps) a Canton.

ALBRIGHTON, 163

On the dexter side of the lower limb are these —
i. Fretty.

ii. A Cinquefoil between eight Mullets, all pierced. (Pichford).
in. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one.
iv. Fretty, on a Canton a Cinquefoil pierced.
On the sinister side of the lower limb are these, —
i, A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Martlets, three, two,

two, and one (Pichford).
ii. A Fesse and in chief three Roundels.

in. A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Cross-crosslets. (Pich-
ford). 61
iv. Barry of ten pieces.

The North side of the tomb has the following, placed above the
successive Pillars which form the Arcade. —
i. Three Cinquefoils, two and one,
ii. Fretty.

in. A Cinquefoil between eight Martlets,
iv. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one.
v. Quarterly — first and fourth, a Bend; second and third,

Fretty. (Despencer).
vi. Bendy of ten pieces.
The West side has these, —
i. A Fesse and in chief three Eoundels.
ii. Three Chevronek.
The South side has these, —
i. Bendy of ten pieces,
ii. Fretty.

in. Two Bars, on a Canton a Cinquefoil.
iv. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one.
v. A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Martlets,
vi. Two Chevrons.

The East side of the Tomb has the Arcade continued, but no
Arms above the Pillars.

The corners of the Tomb immediately below the Slab are sculp-
tured with Fleur-de-lys and Cinquefoils.

In 1699, the South Aisle of Albrighton Church contained the
Marble Tomb above alluded to. Of this, as it has now disappeared,
I add the particulars from an Harleian MS. 58 —

n Vide supra, p. 165, note 2a This I * Had. MS. 6848, fo. 41. Church
ooat was also borne by Umfrayill. I Notes taken by J. Johnaon, May, 1699.

164

ALBRIGHTON.

The Upper slab exhibited seventeen coats of arms, five of which
were arranged so as to form the upper limbs of a rude cross, which
extended to the whole length of the tomb. The other twelve coats
were arranged, two at the S. W. and N. W. angles of the slab, and
ten down the sides of the lower limb of the cross.
The five coats composing the cross were these —
i. (Upper limb) Two Bars and a Canton,
u. [Right limb) Fretty.
in. (Left limb) Two Chevronels.
iv. (Lower limb) A Fleur-de-lys.
v. (Centre) A Chevron. 68
The other twelve coats were as follows —

i. (At S. W. angle) Two Chevronels within a Border.
ii. (At N. W. angle) Three Chevronels. 6 *

Fretty, a Label of three points.
Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose. (Pichford). 55
Three Fleurs-de-lys.
Barry of six.

Two Chevronels within a Border.
A Cinquefoil pierced, between nine Martlets.
A Fesse, and in chief three Roundels.
Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose.
Two Bars, on a Canton, a Rose.
Fretty, on a Canton a Rose.
Johnson notices that the Windows of the South Aisle of
Albrighton Church contained twelve coats of arms, in " very old
glass." We thus obtain the colours of some of the above.
They were as follows —

i. Gu, three Fleurs-de-lys or. 66
ii. Barry of six, or and az. (Pembruge).
in. Az. Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose or. 67
iy. Ou, frettee d'or, a Label of three points az.
v. Gu, frettee d'or. 68

in. (South side

iv. ( Do,

v. ( Do.

vi. ( Do.

vn. ( Do.

vin. (North side

ix. ( Do.

x. ( Do.

xi. ( Do.

xn. ( Do.

** Or, a Chevron Gu, is the coat of the
Barons Stafford.

M Arg. three Chevronels Gu, is a coat
of Langton, but not of Bishop Langton.
Or, three Chevrons Gu, is the better known
cognizance of Be Clare.

H Here and wherever else, in these
notices, Johnson has depicted a Bose, we

are to understand a CinquefoiL

M This charge is associated with the
name of De Burgh.

47 Probably the charge was a Cinque-
foil rather than a Bose. If so the coat
was one of those borne by Pichford.

* Audley bore Gu, a Fret or.

ALBRIGHTON.

165

vi. Ga, a fosse arg. in chief three Plates. 69
tii. Arg. two Bars az. on a Canton of the second a Rose or. 00
vm. Arg. frettee gu, on a Canton az. a Rose or. 61
ix. Bendy of eight or and az. (Montfort) .
x. Az., a Cinquefoil between five Mullets or, all pierced of the

field. (Pichford).
xi. Az. between nine Martlets (four, two, two, and one), a
Cinquefoil or, pierced of the field. (Pichford).
xn. Gu, three Fleurs-de-lys, or.
In the Chancel Windows were the following coats. —

i . Blank, empaling Az., three Stirrups with leathers or (Giffard) .
ii. Ermine, a Cross patonce sa.
in. Gu, seven Mascles or, three, three, and one, a Border

argent.* 3
iv. Arg. on a Bend az. three Roses or.
v. Arg. on a Saltire gu, a Rose or.

vi. Party per pale arg. and gu, two Lions rampant counter-
changed ; on a chief per pale gu and arg. three Escallops
counterchanged .
Dugdale inserts in his Visitation (1663-4) from the notes of
Francis Sandford, Rouge Dragon, the following. 63 —
In an East Window of the Chancel.
i. Erm. a Cross patonce sa.

ii. Arg. six Mascles, three, two, and one, within a Border gu.
in. Arg. on a Fesse az. three Cinquefoils or, pierced gu.
In a South Window of the Church. —
i. Gu, frettee d'or.

ii. Barry of six, or and az. (Pembruge).
In an East Window. —

i. Az. a Cinquefoil or pierced gu, between eight Mullets of
the second, pierced of the field. (Pychford) .

*• Johnson attributes this coat to some

name which he writes Meu : : : e.

• The charge on the Canton I take to
hare been a Cinquefoil rather than a Rose.
The Cinquefoil was the fundamental cog-
nisance of Pichford, whilst the ordinaries
of this shield have been already ascribed
to Hadley (vol. i, p. 100). Piyard bore a
similar coat, viz. Arg. two Bars Gu, on a
Canton Az. a Cinquefoil or. I am much
mistaken if Balph Baron Pypard (sum-
moned to Parliament in Edward I's

II.

reign) was not related to the Piohfords.

81 Johnson ascribes this coat to the
name "Vylile."

88 This coat, without the border, was
that of Quinci. It was subsequently
borne by La Zouche.

68 Dug dale's Visitation at the Herald*'
College, fo. 42. It will easily be seen
that the same coats arevery differently
described by Sandford and Johnson. In
every case I should prefer the former
authority.

166 BISHTON.

ii. Arg. frettee gu, on a Canton az. a Cinquefoil or.
in. Az. a Cinquefoil pierced, between eight Martlets or.

(Pychford).
iv. Bendy of ten, or and az. (Montfort) .
v. Gu, three Leopards' heads, two and one, jessant three

Fleurs-de-lys, or. 64
vi. Gu, a Fesse arg. in chief three Plates. (Davenant).
vn. Arg. two Bars az. on a Canton of the second, a Cinquefoil
or, pierced of the second.

36tsj)tom

The name of this place (originally Bishops-ton) is the only evi-
dence of its earliest status. It was attached to some Episcopal See
probably that of Lichfield, but at a period anterior to any existing
Record. Domesday shows us that Bispetone was in lay hands in
the time of the Confessor. Its separation from the Church was
therefore no matter of Norman Sacrilege.

In 1085, Normannus (Venator) held Bispetone (of Earl Roger),
Turgod ha4 held it and was a free man.

Here was i hide geldable. There was (arable) land for vi ox-teams.
Here two French men with mi villains and n Boors had in such
teams. Here was a wood which would fatten x swine. In time of
King Edward, the Manor had been worth 30$., at Domesday it was
worth 10*. (per annum). 1

Bishton followed the usual descent of Norman Venator/s Manors,
that is, it weijLt to De Picheford; but being so near their growing
town of Albrighton it gradually lost the distinct status which it had
at Domesday and became a mere member of the greater Manor.

The Tenants who held Bishopston under the Lords of Albrighton
took name from the place. The earliest of whom I find mention,
was Henry de Bispeston who will be noticed under Donington, as
Surety for Leticia de Humfreston in 1221.

64 This coat is ascribed to Cantilupe, as well as the same with the Leopards' heads
inverted

1 Domesday, fo. 59, a. 2.

ETONB. 167

Robert and Henry de Bispeston were Jurors, 20 April, 1258,
on the Inquest as to the estate of Ralph de Pichford; and in
January 1256, were Jurors for Brimstree Hundred at the County
Assizes.

In September 1272, John de Bisopeston acted in the same
capacity. Soon afterwards, in a grant made to Lilleshall Abbey
by Hugh de Bolingale, the homages and services of Robert de
Bispeston and John his Brother were included. 2

On May 9, 1283, a Fine was levied at Salop, between John, son
of Henry de Bisshopeston, complainant, and Robert, son of Henry
de Bisshopeston, defendant (impedientem), of two messuages and
one virgate in Bisshopeston, whereof was Plea. Robert acknow-
ledged the right of John as of his (Robert's) gift — to hold of the
Chief Lords by accustomed service. John gave for this Fine one
sore sparrow-hawk. 8

In October 1292, John Fitz Henry de Bispeston was on the
Brimstree Jury at Salop Assizes. He occurs in May 1295, as a
witness with John, Clerk of Bispeston, and in June 1300, as a Juror
with John Fitz Robert of Bispeston. The latter is on a Jury of
May 1304, and John Fitz Henry with Peter de Bispeston were
fellow Jurors in June 1305, at the Inquest as to the estate of Hugh
de Beaumes.

Feb. 10, 1306, John de Aula de Bispeston and Peter de
Bispeston were Jurors on an Inquest at Claverley ; and in May
following, John Robert (i.e. Fitz Robert) de Bispeston was on an
Inquest at Brug. Somewhat later than this John de Aula attests
a deed which will be quoted under Donington.

€toiu.

There was either some uncertainty about the Tenure of this
Manor, which led to its being mentioned twice over in Domesday,
or else being then a Manor of one hide it was divided into two
equal portions. The two entries which describe it are as follows. —

" The same Gerard (de Tornai) holds Etone and William (holds

' Pat. 18 Bic. II, p. 1, memb. 7. | 8 Pedes Finium, 11 Edw. I, Salop.

168

ETONE.

it) of him. Turgod held it (in time of King Edward) and was a
free man. Here is half-a-hide, geldable. The (arable) land is
sufficient for in ox-teams. In demesne there is i (team) and i serf
and mi boors; also, there is i Guest (hospes) paying a rent of two
shillings. In time of King Edward its value was xn shillings :
now it is xi shillings. He (Gerard) found it waste." 1

"The same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds in Etone half a hide.
Turgot held it for a single Manor and paid geld." 9

The latter entry is obviously incomplete, and if not erroneous,
it exhibits Rainald's Tenure only as partial or involved. Wherever
Rainald the Sheriff had a Domesday interest we usually find such
interest subsequently represented by Fitz Alan. In the present
instance I search for such a correspondence in vain. Nothing
held by Fitz Alan in the later Hundreds of Stottesden, Munslow,
or Brimstree is found to square with Rainald's interest in the
Alnodestreu Manor of Etone.

Leaving this difficulty, and looking solely at the mention of Etone
as a member of Gerard de Tornai's Fief, its identity with the modern
township of Hatton will be apparent after a very few remarks.

First as to the name ; —this Hatton as well as other places (so
called now) are usually found to have been written Hettune or
Hetune in older documents. The use or omission of the aspirate was
also a matter of caprice. Its omission in Domesday is noticeable
in the words now pronounced Hodnet, Hawkesley, and Hopton,
which are represented in that record as Odenet, Avochelie, and
Opetune.

Again, Turgod, Saxon Lord of Etone, also held in time of King
Edward, the Manors of Cosford and Bishton, one of which adjoins
and the other is near to Hatton.

Further, we observe that nearly all the escheated Manors of Gerard
de Tornai became tenures in capite by Serjeantry, and some of
them by Serjeantry of Castle-guard at Shrawardine. The latter was
specifically the case with Hatton.

Lastly, Hatton is subsequently found to be a Manor of i hide, a
measurement which will combine the contents of the two Domesday
Manors of Etone,

I can therefore continue my account of the latter no otherwise
than under the name of Hatton, —

1 Domnday, fo. 269, a. 1. | » Domesday, fo. 255, a. 2.

169

ftatttm*

The first Document which I have to quote with reference to this
Manor is a Deed which on the whole, and notwithstanding some
appearances to the contrary, impresses me with an idea of very high
antiquity, — as high as the reign of Henry I or Stephen, 1100-1 154.
Its substance is as follows : —

Adam Traynel of Hetton grants to Ivo his Nephew (Nepoti) his
Manor of Ivelith, as well in Ivelith as in Hynynton, in the County
of Salopsire, also common-right of pasture in his (Adam's) land of
Hetton ; — to have and to hold, &c. in fee;— rendering a Red-Rose
yearly at the Nativity of John the Baptist. — Witnesses : William de
Beaumeis, Walter Fitz Warin, Robert de Cadeleg, Ralph de Pich-
ford, Richard Wudecote, John de Sahebury, Henry de Bolynghale,
William de Creswell, and many others. 1

This Adam Treynel was, I suppose, identical with Adam de
Hetune, one of the earliest benefactors to Buildwas Abbey. Within
fifty years of its foundation, he granted to that house with concur-
rence of Reginald his Son, a moiety of the vill of Hettune, which
grant was afterwards confirmed by King Richard I in his general
Charter to Buildwas, dated at Winchester, 22d October 1189. 2

The original Manor of Hatton seems to have been divided into
two equal portions by a small stream called Tuy-brook, the course
of which may still be traced through a series of artificial pools.
The moiety of Hatton which Adam Traynel granted to Buildwas lay
to the East of this stream, and was therefore contiguous to those other
early acquisitions which the Abbey made at Buckley and Cosford.

1 This Charter is among the Rawlinson
If SS. in the Bodleian Library. Having
never seen more tlian three or four ma-
norial deeds of this early date, I have little
wherewith to compare the one under
notice. — It is on an unusually large scale,
both as regards the parchment, the hand-
writing, and the seal. The latter is
completely defaced. The objection to its
extreme antiquity, as assigned in the text,
is (hat it has the formulas "Habendum et
Tenendum," and "Hiia Testibus," usually
taken to indicate a date no earlier than
the reign of Richard I. There were a

William de Beaumeis, a Walter Fitz Warin,
and a Ralph de Pichford in Henry Ill's
time, and each of them likely to attest a
deed concerning lands in this quarter,
though I should not expect their names
to occur in the order indicated above.
There were also persons bearing each of
these three names in time of Henry I.
They were all similarly likely to attest
such a deed as this.

As far as I can judge, the names of the
other witnesses belong to a period anterior
to the reign of Richard I.

* Monawticon, v, 369, No. xvi.

170

HATTON.

The Monks were ever most assiduous in extending their pos-
sessions here. During the reign of Richard I, as I conclude, they
obtained a grant from John de Hemes of a virgate and twelve acres
of his demesne in Hettun. This was clearly a part of that moiety
which lay to the west of Tuy-brook, and which John de Hemes
held under Traynel.

This second acquisition was followed by a third not later than the
year 1202, and of which we have full particulars —

Walter, Son of John de Hemes, with assent of his Mother, his
heir and his friends, grants and confirms to the Abbey of Buldewas in
perpetual almoign all that land of Hettun, viz. a virgate and twelve
acres, which his Father gave of his demesne. He adds to the gift
" all the land which is between the road of Hyvelith (Evelith) and
Tuibroc, which was formerly heath, and four meadows which pertain
thereto." This latter land the Monks were to hold of Walter by
an annual rent of \2d. payable to him and his heirs, and by dis-
charging a further annual rent of 5*. which was due to the Grantor's
Chief Lord, — Robert Trainel. The Monks were also to satisfy all
foreign service due on half-a- virgate of said land, but the rest was
to continue free, as of demesne. For this grant the Monks received
the Grantor, his Mother, and his Heirs into their fraternity. —
Witnesses : John le Strange, Hugh de Pichford, Reginald de Time,
Wido de Saweburi, Hamo Fitz Marscot, Richard de Ruiton,
Nicholas de Bolinchale, William Crasset, Baldwin de Hinetun,
and John his Son, Peter de Hale^ Hugh de Becchebur, Reginald
le Budel of Ruiton. 8

Robert Trainel mentioned in the above deed as Lord of Hatton,
must be taken as a Successor of Adam Trainel and Reginald his Son,
but by what relationship I cannot determine. At the Assizes of Oct.
1203, he appears as Essoigner of Adam de Hereford, a non-attendant
at the Common Summons, and of whom we have heard before. 4

The Tenure by which the Trainels held Hatton was Petit &r-
jeantry, of which we now first begin to have some evidence. King
John's fifth Scutage, that of 1204, was assessed upon Serjeantries.
Accordingly we read on the Pipe-Roll that Robert de Tremell fined
half a merk for the same. 5

3 Charter formerly in possession of
Humphrey Briggs, Esq., copied by Blake-
way from Wm. Mytton's MSS. The Seal
of this deed is charged with a Lion passant.
The Legend is as follows —

Sig. Waltebi fil. Johannis dbHkme.

Wido de Shawbury, one of the wit-
nesses, was murdered about 1202, which
gives the proximate date.

4 Supra, Vol. I, p. 181.

* Hot. Pip. 6 John, Salop.

HATTON.

171

And soon after this, Robert Trainel died, for I find that about
March 1205, William Tramnell gave the King fifteen merks to have
custody of the lands and heir of the said Robert till the said heir
should be of age. Mandate accordingly issued to the Sheriff of
Salop. 6

William Trainel seems to have been a Lawyer. He had already
appeared in 1199 and 1200 in the Courts of Westminster as
Essoigner of several parties to Shropshire Law-suits. He paid his
fine of fifteen merks by instalments in 1205, 1206, and 1207.

Nevertheless, about March 1210, he seems to have lost this
wardship, though the heir was still a Minor.

The lists of Shropshire Serjeantries, about 121 1, 7 tells us that
Robert de Tremeill (the skid heir) was then in custody of the King;
that his Tenure was Hatton, on which the Sheriff was accountable,
at the Exchequer, for 40s. per annum.

In perfect conformity with this return I find that at Michaelmas
1212, the Sheriff accounted 100*. at the Exchequer "for two-and-
a-half years ferm of Robert Trainers Hatton," and that at
Michaelmas 1214, he accounted £4. on the same, viz. the ferm of
two years more. 8

This ferm of 40*. per annum was the exact income of Robert
Trainees land, for, as will presently appear, he had previously to his
death granted his interest in Hatton to Buildwas Abbey for a term
of years, reserving only the said rent.

On Jan. 12, 1215, Robert Trainel (the younger) was of age, and
fined "50*. for his Relief, and to have receipt of 40*. rent, which
the Monks of Buildwas were to pay the said Robert for the term
. during which R. Trainel his Father had demised his land of Hatton
to them to ferm, so that, the said term ended, the land may come
peaceably to said Robert's hands." The King's writ forthwith
issued to the Sheriff commanding him to take security for the fine
of 50*. and give seizin of the said rent, and (when the term should
expire) of the said land, to the heir. 9

It was an arrear of this fine, viz. 10*. for which in 1218, Martin
de Patishull a great Justiciar of that period, undertook to be
answerable on behalf of Robert Trainel. Respite was accordingly
given till Michaelmas for payment of the same. 10

I am inclined to think that the Monks of Buildwas continued

• JEiies, 6 John, metnb. 5.
' Testa de NemU t pp. 56, 417; and
Liber Hub. Scaoc.

8 Mot. Pip. 14 and 16 John, Salop.

9 Rot. Clous, i, 182.

10 Memoranda, 2 Hen. III.

172 HATTON.

to hold Robert Trainees land at ferm, either under the old lease,
or a renewal thereof by himself. In 1219, they are paying the
Lord of Ideshale a rent of 3*. per annum for common-pasture
in Ideshale. 11

In 1227, among Tenures in Brimstree Hundred we read that
Robert Traynel holds half-a-hide in Henton (Hatton) by Serjeantry
of finding one serving foot-soldier at Shrewrthin, at his own cost,
for fifteen days, if need shall be, and that the Tenure is worth 40*.
per annum. 12

We now come to the transaction by which the Monks of Build-
was at length obtained full possession of that moiety of Hatton of
which they had been previously Lessees, and so became Lords of
the undivided Manor. —

Robert, son of Robert Traynel of Hattone, for the health of his
soul, granted to the Monks in frank almoigne, all the land, and
wood, and heath, and moor, which he had, as well in demesne as
in seigneury (in servicio) in a moiety of the vill of Hattone, viz.
whatever lay " between the rivulet of Tuybroc as it descends into
the stream of Worth (Worf ) on one 6ide, and the boundary fences
of Hynetone (Hinnington) and of Grenhull (Grindle) on the other
side, down to the aforesaid stream of Worth." He also conceded
to the same Monks the other moiety of the vill of Hattone which
they already had, by gift of Adam Traynell of Hattone. 18

This Deed probably passed about 1248, and about 1251 an
Inquest of Tenures found the Abbot of Buldewas holding two
carucates of land in Solde-hatton of the gift of Robert Traynel who
used to hold that vill of the King in capite. 1 *

In 1252, Nicholas, Abbot of Buildwas, withdrew the suit of
Hatton from the Hundred of Brimstree, a further proof, not only
of his seigneury there, but of the Manor being independent of any
other. The King was said to be damaged 2*. per annum by this
withdrawal, which probably was in conformity with the special pri-
vileges of a Cistercian House. 15

u Salop Chartulary, No. 878.

u TestadeNevi?l i j>.5&. If one moiety
of Hatton was half a hide, the whole must
have necessarily been a hide. Herein we
have a repetition of the Domesday estimate.

18 Monasticon, v, 358 ; xiii. The wit-
nesses are Sir Ralph de Picheford, Richard
de Grenehul, Hugh de Leva, Osbert de
Stircheleg; also (asinJfot.Cort.ZOEdw.I,
memb. 40) Nicholas, Parson of Hope,

Ralph de Stanton, Humfrey de Humfres-
ton, Robert de Dudmaston, and Henry
Crasset.

14 Testa de NeviU, p. 60. I cannot
account for this name or misnomer of
Solde-hatton, unless it be a confusion
with Cold-hatton ; a place however where
Buildwas Abbey had never any concern.

u Salop Assizes, 66 Hen. Ill, memb.
22 dorso.

D0N1NGT0N. 173

At the Assizes of 1272, when this presentment was made,
William Crasset sued the Abbot for his Manor of Hatton juxta
Edeahale (Idsall), as his (William's) right and inheritance, and to
be held by him of the King in capite. The Abbot appeared and
pleaded that " there were two vilh of Hatton in this County, viz.
Hatton Crasset and Hatton Traynel," and that the Plaintiff had
not specified either of them. 16 This plea, which however I cannot
understand, was effectual, for the Abbot was dismissed sine die.

In 1291, the Temporalities of the Abbey of Buildwas in Atton (in
Newport Deanery and Salop Archdeaconry) were thus estimated. —

Two carucates of land £1. 0*. Otf.; Profits on Live Stock
£6. 2*. 6d. Pannage 2#. Orf.— Total £7. 4*. 6rf."

Hatton continued in possession of Buildwas Abbey till the
Dissolution; the Abbot declared his rents there to amount to
£5. 6*. 8rf. per annum, and the tithes to be farmed at £2. 18

A Chapel is said to have been sometime existent here, a most
probable adjunct of a Manor so circumstanced. The district was
however in the Parish of Idshall, and the Monks of Buildwas were,
at the Dissolution, still paying a pension of 16*. 8rf. to the Vicar of
Idshall for administering the Sacraments in " Hatton Graunge." 19

Bonfttfitom

The Saxon word bum; (hilly) scarcely applies to the circum-
stances of this locality. Dunning was however a Saxon name ;
and a person so called, and having sometime possessed this place,
may possibly be entitled to the simple but enduring monument
thus indicated in a word.

Domesday mentions the Manor as follows, —

The Earl himself holds Donitone. Earl Edwin held it (in time
of King Edward). Here are in hides. In demesne are iv ox-

16 Ibidem, merab. 7 recto. There were
four or fire villi of Hatton in Shropshire,
bat it is clear that Hatton-Crasset and
Hatton-Trajnel, were names applied to
two vills, or two parts of the same ttill,
near ShiSnal ; otherwise the Plaintiff's de-
scription would have been sufficient. I

should suppose Hatton*Crasset to have
lain towards Cosford, and to have been
some time held by the Crassets under the
Lords of Hatton.

" Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 260.

18 Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 191.

19 Ibidem, p. 192.

it. 23

174

DONINGTON.

teams and (there are) viii neat-herds and n female serfs, and xn
villains and n boors with in ox-teams ; and yet there might be vn
teams more (employed) here. Here is a Mill rendering v horse-
loads of corn (yearly), and a wood one league long, and half-a-league
wide. In Wich there are v salt-pits (belonging to the Manor),
which render xx shillings (annually). In time of King Edward
the Manor realized £20. (per annum) ; now (it pays) £9}

The Manors, thus held in Demesne by the Norman Earl, are
enumerated in Domesday without any formal statement as to their
respective Hundreds. Donington and Tong (also a demesne
Manor) stood at the convergence of three Domesday Hundreds,
viz, Alnodestreu (which contained Albrighton), Bascherch (which
contained Cosford and Idshall), and Becordine (which came up to
Lilleshall). The Hundred of Idshall and Cosford was however
determined by a peculiarity of tenure which did not extend to
Donington and Tong; and whereas no Recordine Manors are
known to have become Brimstree Manors, it follows, I think, from
this, and from their proximity to Albrighton, that Donington and
Tong were both in Alnodestreu Hundred.

After the forfeiture of the Norman Earls, the Seigneury of this
Manor passed by grant of the Crown to Richard de Belmeis, Bishop
of London, of whom and his Successors, Lords of Donington and
Tong, I propose to give a fuller account under the latter Manor.

1 Domesday, fo. 253, b. 2. There is
one clause in this entry which requires
special notice, viz. "In Wich v salines
reddunt xx solidos." —

The Domesday Annotators have left us
to suppose that where Saljna (salt-works
or salt-pans) are mentioned in connexion
with any Manor, some local advantage is
indicated, e.g. that a salt-spring or the
sea-coast was near at hand. It is further
ascertained that Wich was a generic term
applicable to any place where salt was
produced. No etymological connexion
has, I think, been established between the
word Wich and salts but I need only
mention Droitwich in Worcestershire, and
Nantwich, Northwich, and Middlewich in
Cheshire, as a few instances of the rela-
tionship.

Are we then to conclude that in 1085
the Manor of Donington contained within
its limits a district called Wich, wherein

were five salt-works ? I suppose it just
as probable that it contained five miles of
sea-coast, where marine salt was manu-
factured.

The truth, I imagine, is that five Salina
in Wich, that ib in one of the large salt-
districts of Cheshire or Worcestershire,
were adjuncts of this Manor, and had been
so in Saxon times.

Earl Edwin, the Saxon Lord of Do-
nington, was, next to King Edward the
Confessor, the principal owner of the
Wiches of Cheshire and Worcestershire.

So much for the state of things at and
before the time of Domesday. — In the
next century (the twelfth) we find Barons,
Abbots, and Priors, whose territories lay
mainly in Shropshire, holding or trans-
ferring shares in the salt-works of both
Cheshire and Worcestershire. Distance
was no bar to the acquisition of property
bo essential.

DONINGTON.

175

Here we will speak of that collateral race of De Belmeis, whose
Ancestor having been enfeoffed in Donington held the same under
the elder house and transmitted it, so held, to some generations of
his heirs.

Without attempting to decide who that William de Beaumeis
was who stands first witness of the deed with which I have com-
menced my account of Hatton, 2 I proceed to Richard de Beaumeis
undoubtedly living in the time of Henry II, holding Donington
undeT the Lords of Tong, and perhaps having an interest at
Meadowley by a similar title.

Philip de Belmeis, Lord of Tong, and Cousin as I suppose of
this Richard, made, about the year 1139, a grant to the then
recently founded Abbey of Buildwas. This grant, besides other
advantages, included Ruckley then a member of Tong. Philip's
example was in due time followed by his relation and vassal
Richard, who (as I understand his deed) granted to the same
Monks now established in their Grange of Ruckley, a right of com-
mon-pasture throughout his land (of Donington), and three acres
of land whereunto they might attach a bridge, which must needs
be made across the stream which ran between Ruckley and Don-
ington before such common -right could be available. 8

Between the years 1152 and 1159, Richard de Belmeys, as a

3 Supra, page 169. Were the date
of this deed more certain, I should con-
sider William de Beaumeis to hare been
Brother of the Viceroy and his Feoffee at
Donington.

s This very ancient and curious deed is
in possession of George Pritchard, Esq.,
of Broseley. It has already been trans-
lated (in Mr. Dukef Antiquities, Appendix,
p. Ixt), but with one or two inaccuracies,
which render a transcript of the original
desirable. I give it with the contractions
resolved : —

Kotum sit omnibus ecclesie Christi
fidelibus, clericis et laicis modernis et
postexis, quod ego Bichardus de Belmeis,
cum consensu et consilio uxoris me® et
fratrum meorum concessi et dedi Abbati
et Monachis de Bildwas totam communem
pasturam per totam terram meam, ovibus
suis et ceteris animalibuB quee habent apud
Bochele. — Et ut ad illam pasturam sine
alio impedimento possint Tenure, dedi eis

in perpetuum tres acras de terra mea juxta
rivulum sUbtus Chelfesford, ubi pontem
suam ultra aquam ponant. Hano itaque
terram cum predicts pastura dedi Deo et
Sanct® Mari® et predictis Monachis in
perpetuam elemosinam pro salute anima
mea? et patris et matris mea? et ceterorum
parentum meorum, ita libere et quiete ab
omni terreno servioio et exactione seculari
ut niohil mihi neo meis in eA retinuerim
nisi tutelam et proteotionem contra omnes
qui eis in aliquo adversari voluerint.
Hujus me® donacionis et confirmacionis
isti sunt testes, Bernardus de Saint cum
Alano de Bildwas et Ada* Sacerdote,
Philippo fratre ipsius Bicardi, Badulfo
Venatore, Hemmie de Shakerlau; De
Monachis Adam et Gaufridua cum Fratre
Bogerio, totusque Gonventus.

The Seal of this deed has the figure of a
Knight on horseback, with drawn sword
and a conical helmet. The words Bicabdi
de Belmeis remain of the Legend.

176 DONINGTON.

Knight of Philip de Belmeys junior, Lord of Tong, attests the
grant of the latter to Lilleshall Abbey.

In 1157, this Richard de Bealmes is mentioned as having fined
ten merks with the King to have some trial (loquela) against Alan
de Uppedun. This fine is entered asanarrear till 1160, when
the King's writ had ordered it to be excused, calling it a fine for a
plea qf seizin.*

In 1167, Richard de Bealmes' (Manor of) Dunnincton is entered
as having been amerced half-a-merk in a recent iter of the Justice
of the Forest. 6

At Michaelmas 1189, Aaron, a very wealthy Jew of Lincoln,
having died, his chattels and securities escheated to the Crown.
Richard de Beumes had owed him £4. 8s. 6d. which he pays
through the Sheriff of Shropshire by successive instalments, the
last of which is entered on the Pipe-Roll of 1200. 6

All that I can further say of Richard de Belmeis is, that he
appears to have granted a subinfeudation of Shakerley a member of
Donington, to Robert, Uncle of Robert de Wodecote. 7

It is more than probable that the several notices above given as
attaching to the name of Richard de Belmeis indicate a succession
of two persons of the same name, probably Father and Son. I
doubt not however that, if this were so, both were Lords of
.Donington. From 1185 to 1203, we have occasional notices of
one Robert de Belmeis who I believe to have been representative
of another branch of the family, and to have had feoffment in Tong
and elsewhere. Of him and his very uncertain succession, I will
say more when I come to that Manor.

The next Lord of Donington whom I can discover after Richard
de Belmeis was Walter de Belmeis.

He first appears in November 1221, as having been challenged
by Geoffrey de Eswell for breach of the King's peace and for
robbery. His accuser, though bound over to prosecute, did not
appear before the Justices in Eyre, and so was to be arrested, the
Jury meantime acquitting the accused. 8

4 Sot ity. 3, 4, 6 & 6 Hen. II, Salop.
I doubt not that the Buit referred to some
disputed land at Meadowley, where Alan
de Upton (mentioned Vol. I, page 140.)
will have been the Defendant, and where
I have shown Richard de Belmeis to have
been probably interested in 1180 (Vol. I,
p. 150).

* Rot. Pip. 13 Hen. II. De placUU
Alam de NevilL

6 Rot. Pip. 1 Ric, I to 2 John, Salop.

* Vide Monatticon, vi, 264, No. xiii,
where Robert de Wudeoote (the Nephew)
transfers this Tenancy to Lilleshall Abbey.

8 Salop Assises, 6 Hen. Ill, memo. 8.

DONINGTON.

177

In Michaelmas Term 1223, Walter de Beaumes being one of
four Knights who had to try an issue about land in Little Wythiford
was for some cause removed from the panel. About this time, and
followed by Philip de Beaumes, he attests a Charter of Roger la
Zouch, Lord of Tong, to Buildwas Abbey. He has already
occurred as a prominent witness to a Badger Deed which passed
about 1227.

About 1240, he is entered, on a Roll of Tenures, as holding a
knight's fee in Doninton of the Barony of Herbert Fitz Peter. 9
Here, though the Tenant's name be stated correctly enough, it is
probable that the Seigneury is altogether misrepresented.

In 1255, Walter de Belmeis was deceased, and, as I have pointed
out under Meadowley, Roger de Belmeis, who was his son, had
succeeded him.

At the Assizes of January 1256, 1 find/ohanna, widow of Walter
de Beaumeis, suing several under-tenants in Donington for her
dower. —

Her suit against Ranulph, son of Richard Russell, for thirds in
four acres of land and two of meadow, was adjourned to one month
of Easter, the Defendant calling Roger de Beaumes to warranty. —

Her suit against the same for thirds in three acres of land and
five of meadow, was adjourned till the Quinzaine of Easter ; and the
land meanwhile was seized by the Crown because the Defendant did
not appear. —

Her suit against the Prioress of Brewood for a third part of 100
acres, and that against Roger de Pyweledon for a third of five acres
of meadow, were met by both Defendants calling Roger de
Beaumes to warranty, Roger de Pyweledon only claiming a terminal
interest under demise of Walter de Beaumes.

• T*rta d* JfeeiU, p. 46. Donington
ww at this time held immediately of Alan
la Zouche and of the Honour of Tong.
So far, therefore, this entry is not strictly
correct. Neither can I suppose it true
that Alan la Zouche held Tong of the
Barony of Herbert Fits Peter. I can
account for the mistake only in one way.
The Fits Herberts had profited largely by
the forfeiture of William de Braose in
King John's reign, and were subsequently
sharers in his inheritance. Moreover,
William de Braose had had in 1204 some
Seiguoral Interest over Tong. During

the temporary forfeiture of Roger la Zouch,
this Seignoral Interest had further gained
for Braose the actual possession of Tong
as of an Escheat. His rights, therefore,
may bare inadvertently been taken to
have descended to Herbert Fits Peter,
whereas the Tenant-right had been re-
stored to La Zouche, and the Seigneurs!
right (whatever it was) seems to have
gone with the bulk of the Honour of
Brecknock to the Earls of Hereford.

How Braose originally acquired a seig-
neury in the Honour of Tong I have not
the remotest conception.

178 DONINGTON.

Roger de Beaumes appeared in these cases and vouched each
warranty, so that the Defendants were dismissed sine die, and
Johanna adjudged to have equivalents out of other lands of Roger
de Beaumes. 10

At the same Assizes, Roger de Beaumes, being impleaded by the
Prioress of the White Nuns of Brewood in regard to her right to have
estovers in Doninton Wood, came to an agreement on the subject. 11

In this year also, Roger de Beaumes was returned by the Sheriff
as one of those who, holding £15. of lands, was yet not a Knight. 13
In 1258, he fined half-a-merk of gold (equal to five merks of silver)
to have respite in this matter, and the said fine was still in arrear at
Michaelmas 1259. 13

All that I can further say of this Roger is contained in a deed
whereby William, sou of Walter Spink, of Culeshal (Kilsall) quits
to Roger, son of Walter c|p Beaumes, all his right in the land which
said Walter Spink held under the Ancestors of said Roger, with a
messuage, curtilage, and other appurtenances, within and without
the vill of Doniton. — Witnesses : Peter Gifiard, Hugh de Hadinton,
Hugh de Bolinchal, John de Pres, Michael de Morton, Stephen
Parker (Parcarius), Robert de Picstoc, John Fitz Pagan, Ranulph
the Forester, and others. 14

A period of at least ten years now elapses, during which I find
neither deed nor Record to throw any light on this succession. In
1270, however, John de Belmeis was suing the Master of the
Knights Templars under writ of Novel Disseizin for a Knight's
Fee in Medweleye (Meadowley), 16 and he must have been of the
Donington branch. There was also one Alan de Beaumes whom the
Brimstree Jurors presented, at the Assizes of 1272, as not guilty of
Larceny. John de Beaumes again occurs in 1284 as holding the
Manor of Doninton with Culeshall (Kilsall) and Shakerlawe
(Shakerley), under Roger la Zouch, by one Knight's Fee.

This John de Beaumes bought the Manor of Stanwcy from his
contemporary Hugh de Beaumes, who also had an interest in Tong
and Donington. 16

At the Assizes of October 1292, both John and Hugh officiated

10 Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, membs.
13 dorso, 15 dorso.

11 Ibidem, memb. 14 dorso.

19 Dukes' Antiquities, Introduction,
page vii.

18 Sot. Pip. 43 Hen. Ill, Salop.

14 Charter in possession of the Rev.
Henry Biahton.

14 Patent, 54 Hen. Ill, dorso. The
Templars held at this time the Barony of
Castle Holgate, of which Meadowley was
a member. (Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 157.)

18 Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I. John
and Hugh de Beaumes were not related,
or related so distantly that the Crown-
Prosecutor, questioning some privilege

DONINGTON. 179

as Jurors of Brimstree Hundred ; the former too was returned as
Tenant of a Knight's Pee, and yet not a Knight. 17

July 11, 1296, both Sir Hugh and John de fieaumes were on
the Inquest as to the estate of Fulk de Pembridge of Tong, but the
former only is distinguished as a Knight.

A writ of King Edward I, dated May 1, 1304, directs an Inquest
to be held to ascertain whether it would injure the King if he
allowed John de Beaumeys to grant ten acres of land and ten acres
of wood in Donyton to the Prioress of the White Nuns of Brewodc.
The Inquest, which was taken at Salop on May 14 following,
reported in favour of the grant, adding that the land in question
was held of Alan la Zouche by military service, " for that John held
the Manor by half a Knight's Fee under said Alan, and therein
were three carucates of land, 300 acres of wood, twenty acres of
meadow, and five merks of annual rent over and above the twenty
acres proposed to be alienated, which twenty acres were worth
3*. 4rf. per annum" 18

June 12, 1305, John de Beaumes was still living, for the Inquest
then taken on the death of his contemporary, Hugh de Beaumes,
shows the latter to have held a messuage, &c. in John's Lordship
of Donington. 19

And within ten years of the last date, John de Beaumes was
deceased, leaving two sons Hugh and John, the latter of whom,
being the younger, and having some interest in both Donington and
Stanwey by disposition of his Father, resigned the same to his
elder Brother. The deed is in the form of a common quit-claim,
the Grantor styling himself " John de Beaumeys, son of John de
Beaumeys Lord of Donython." 20

In 7 Edw. II (1313-4) died Alan, last Baron Zouche of Ashby,
and the Inquest on his death duly records his seigneury at Don-
nington where he is said to have held half a Knight's Fee. 21

claimed by John de Beaumes at Stanwey,
denied their relationship altogether. It is
this single circumstance which has enabled
me to distinguish the two lines which
they represented.

17 Ibidem, memb. 51 recto, 23 recto.

M Inquisitions, 32 Edw. I, No. 125.

» Inquisitions, 83 Edw. I, No. 16.

* Charter in possession of the Bey.
Henry Bishton. The witnesses are Sirs
Walter de Huggeford and William le
Forcer, Knights; Henry de Beaumeys
(son and heir of Hugh who died in 1305),

Roger Carles, Roger de Pynelesdon,
Richard de Enycheleye (Neachley), John
de Aula de Bispeston and others. It
must certainly have passed between 1305
and 1324, and, forasmuch as it is un-
dated, probably in the earlier half of that
period.

s An undated deed of Fulk Pembruge's,
which I shall set forth under Tong, ex-
hibits a combination of names almost
identical, and passed probably in 1312.
u Inquisitions, 7 Edw. II, No. 36.

180

DONINGTON.

But to return to Hugh de Beaumes his Tenant. — He, like his
Father, wishing to benefit the Convent of White Nuns of Brewood,
procured the King's Writ (dated 10th July 1315, ordering Inquest
to be made as to the damage which the Crown would suffer if he
granted thirty acres of wood in Donynton to the Prioress. The
Jurors sat at Donynton on 28th July, and reported that the grant
would be harmless ; that the wood was held of William de Mortimer
Lord of Ashby la Zouche, with other lands in Donynton, by
service of half a Knight's Fee ; that the thirty acres were worth
5*. per annum ; that the said William de Mortimer and the Earl
of Hereford were mediate between Hugh de Beaumes and the
King. 8 *

In 1316, Hugh de Beaumeys was duly returned as Lord erf the
Manor of Donnington. 28

On April 22, 1324, styling himself Lord of Donynton, he grants
to John de Beames his Brother, a messuage in Shakerlew, which
John atte Syche held, and two parcels of adjacent land in addition,
with two pieces of waste in Donynton Wood, &c, to hold to John
and his heirs lawfully begotten, at a rent of 8*. payable to the
Grantor and Helena his wife and the Grantor's heirs, for all services
except heriots and suit of the Grantor's Court of Donynton. He
also grants wood for fire and fence, and the accustomed rights of
common for all the Grantee's own stock and for 240 sheep of other
persons. If the Grantee die without lawful issue, then the
premises shall remain to John, son of said John, and his heirs
lawfully begotten, whom failing remainder is limited to the right
heirs of John Senior. 2 *

All that I can further say of Hugh de Beaumes, Lord of Don-
ington, is that he was returned in 1324, as a Man-at-Arms liable
to attend the Great Cotmcil summoned to meet at Westminster on
May 30 in that year. 26

A fine of the Manor of Donington levied in 1329, seems to
indicate that Henry de Beaumeys was then Lord thereof. He,
Henry, was no relation to Hugh, and therefore if any change
had occurred it will have been rather by purchase than by

a Ad quod damnum, 9 Edw. II, No.
121.

9 Parliamentary Writs, vol. iv, p.
899.

u Charter in possession of the Be?.
Henry Bishton. This deed is dated at
Donynton, on Sunday, in the close of

Easter, 17 Edw. II, and is attested by
Roger de Pulesdon, John Humfrey, John
Carlas, William de Blymhyll, and Bichard
son of Syxnan Lucas. Sir Robert de
Atterlegh, Rector of Tong, is mentioned
as an adjoining freeholder.
* Parliamentary Write, IV. 618.

DONINGTON. 181

succession. This Fine shall be given at length, when I come,
under Tong, to speak of the succession of the said Henry.

Op the Undertenants at Neachley, Shakerley, and Kilsall, in
Donington Manor, I have nothing more to say than has been implied
already, or will appear in my notices of neighbouring places.

HUMPHRESTON,—

though mentioned in one instance as a Member of Albrighton, is
much more generally associated with the Manor and Parish of
Donington. I presume the place to have been named after some
early Tenant thereof, of whose descendants, or of a family other-
wise settled here, we have several distinct notices. —

At the Assizes of 1203, William de Omfreeston was amerced
for default;** and at those of 1221, Leticia, Widow of William de
Umfreiston, withdrew the suit of novel disseisin which she had
against Walter de Beaumes for stopping up a road in Brewode to
the injury of her free tenement in Umfreiston. Her Sureties were
Henry de Bispeston and William Pitz Ralph. 27

About the middle of the Century, Humphrey de Humphreyston
occurs as a witness of some local charters.

In 1272, among Pleas of the Crown connected with Brimstree
Hundred, William de Unfreyston is entered as in miseric&rdid for
contempt. 88

At the Assizes of Oct. 1292, John de Unfreyston sat as a
Juror for Brimstree Hundred, and I find the same person under
the name of John Humfrey attesting deeds, or sitting on Juries
under dates of May 31, 1295, July 11, 1296, June 6, 1300, and
April 22, 1324.

DONINGTON CHURCH.

The Record, which so accurately enumerates five Salt-pits, a
Mill, and a Wood as adjuncts of Donington Manor, in 1085, would
hardly have omitted the Church had it existed at the time. We
must therefore ascribe this Foundation to Earl Roger de Mont-
gomery whom we know to have bestowed the Advowson thereof on
Shrewsbury Abbey."

Donington Church will therefore have been built, endowed, and
thus disposed of, within eight years of Domesday, for Earl Roger
died in July 1094, if not a year earlier.'

* Salop Assizes, 5 John, m. 6 dorso. I * Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, 22 recto.
v Salop Assises, 6 Hen. Ill, m.3 dorso. I * Salop Chartulary, No. 2.

ii. 21

182

DONINGTON*

This grant to Shrewsbury Abbey received specific confirmation
from King William (probably Ruftis), Henry I, Stephen, Henry II,
and Henry III, in their various Charters to that House.

The Monks of Shrewsbury were induced to consign this
Advowson to Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London, who, as
Lord of the Manor, will have had special reasons for such an
arrangement.

The last moments of that great Statesman, when he lay dying
at the Priory of St. Osyth, were devoted to certain formal acts of
restitution, suggested either by some previous injustice of his own,
or some doubt as to the honorable inclinations of his heir. His
letter on the subject of his interest in Donington Church belongs
undoubtedly to this period of his life, and was suggested by some
such feeling. It is as follows, —

" Richard Bishop of London to all the Barons of the County of
Scropscire greeting. I will that ye tender testimony for the
Monks of St. Peter, that Roger the Earl gave them the Church
of Doninton before that I obtained the mil ; and I do have the
same Church from them, not as a gift, but as a trust (non donatam
sed praestitam) as long as they may will. Farewell." 80

Thus in January 1127, will the Monks of Shrewsbury have
obtained a second title-deed to the Advowson of Donington.

I should have observed that Earl Roger's grant of Churches to
Shrewsbury Abbey was accompanied by a right of appropriation,
subject only to the lives of existing Incumbents. Such a right
must have been from the first exercised under Episcopal sanction.
In the case of Donington it was commuted at a very early period
for an annual pension of half-a-merk (6*. 8rf.), payable by the
Incumbent to the Abbey.

These rights of Advowson and Pension generally were confirmed
to the Abbey by Charters of Roger de Clinton, 81 Walter Durdent, 8 *
and other succeeding Bishops of Chester, Coventry, or Lichfield ;
the specific pension of half-a-merk, I also find authorized in a
Charter of Richard Peche, 88 Bishop of Lichfield from 1161 to 1182.

In 1291, the Church of Doniton in the Deanery of Newport

» Salop Chartulary, No. 853 b.

» Harl. MSS. 8868, fo. 7, b, is un-
doubtedly the Charter of Roger de Clin-
ton (1129-48). It confirms the Church of
Donytone, with a pension of half-a-merk.

» Salop Chartulary, No. 61.

38 Ibidem, No. 829. But a Charter of
Roger Bishop of Chester (No. 328) names
a pension of 3*. 4d. only as due from
Donington. However the Confirmation
of John de Feccham, Archbishop of Can-
terbury (No. 62), names the higher sum.

DONINGTON.

183

stands taxed as of £2. 18s. Ad. annual value, but mention of the
Abbot of Shrewsbury's pension is omitted. 84

In 1341, the Commissioners assessed the parish of Dunynton
at £1. 3*. 4td. for the ninth of corn, wool and lamb. The reasons
why it was assessed so low, were because a thirtieth of wheat was
payable as tithe of one carucate held by the Abbot of Buildwas,
and because another carucate held by the same Abbot lay untilled;
also because the Prioress of the Nuns of Brewod had three caru-
cates of land in the Parish and paid tenths thereon to the Pope,
and because the glebe, small tithes, the mill, and other spiritualities
went to swell the greater sum (the Taxation) and did not affect the
ninth conceded to the King. 36

In 1534, the Rectory of Donyngton (of which Richard Hill
was Incumbent) was of £14. gross annual value, which was
chargeable with 13*. 4rf. for Synodals and Procurations. —

The Abbot of Shrewsbury still continued to receive a pension of
6*, 8rf. therefrom. 86

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

The earliest of these, of whom I have any notice, was a victim
of the times in which he lived. —

At the Assizes of January 1256, the Jurors of Brimstree
Hundred reported how Simon, Parson of Dunyton, had been slain
by unknown Malefactors, who had also burnt his house, and
how the villa of Dunyton, Tonge &c. had made no pursuit after
the assassins. 87

At this period the murdered man had been succeeded by one
named James, for at the same Assizes an issue was tried as to
whether —

Ranulph le Forester had unjustly erected a fence in Duniton to
the injury of the free tenement of Hugh de Schenton in the same
vilL Roger de Halcton (Haughton), Adam Pollard of Legh, Hugh
de Bullinghal (Boningale), Thomas de Albrigton, Robert de
Esthull (As tall), and John de Estwik, Recognizors in this cause,

** Pope Nick. Taxation, p. 245.

* Inquintionet Nonarum, p. 193. We
know of no grants made to Buildwas
Abbey in Donington Manor, except three
acres and a right of Common by Richard
de Belmeis, The Parish will therefore
have originally been more extensive than
the Manor, perhaps comprising part of

Buckley, or else the right of Common
must hare been commuted for a definite
quantity of land within the Manor.

36 Valor Eccletuuticu*) vol iii, pp.
186, 189.

* Placita Corona, 40 Hen. Ill,
memb. 9.

184 DON1NGTON.

did not appear. It was found however that Ranulph had erected
the said fence in the name of James, Parson of Duniton ; — to Hugh
the Plaintiff was found to be in misericordid.**

At the Assises of September 1272, Henry de Belton, Parson
of Donington subtus Brewode, having demised a messuage and
haif-virgate in Donington to Banulf Russell, and the latter being
sued for the same by John, son of John Gernyn, alleged his
tenancy to be at will of said Henry, and so was dismissed sine die} 9

Richard de Albriston, tHe next Rector of Donington of
whom I find any mention, died May 4, 1311, and on June 5
following, —

Richard de Polyleye, Subdeacon, was admitted and instituted
at presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Salop. This Rector
has license for a year's study Nov. 6, 1313, and resigned April 27,
1320. On May 3 following,—

Sir Thomas de Coventre, Chaplain, was admitted at the
presentation of Salop Abbey. On March 10, 1329, he exchanged
this preferment for the Vicarage of Wotton (Lichfield Diocese), and
the late Vicar thereof, —

Sir Roger de Boyvyle, was instituted here at the usual
presentation. On Aug. 3, 1330, Sir Roger Doyvile (sic) exchanged
for the Church of Chirchelalford (Church Lawford, Warwickshire) 40
and the Incumbent thereof, —

Robert lb Vener, Priest, was instituted here on the usual
presentation. He did not long hold the living, for on July 9>
1339,—

Nicholas de Wasthull, Rector of Donyngton, having exchanged
this Rectory for that of Westonjuxta Cammel (Bath and Wells
Diocese), the late Rector of Weston, —

John de Pencrich, was admitted here. Sir Thomas (sic)
Penkcrych, Rector of Donington, died August 25, 1349, and
on Feb. 11, 1350,—

Roger de Umfreston, Chaplain, was admitted on the usual
presentation. 41

Francis Sandford notices (in 1663-4) two coats of arms in
Donington Church Windows, apparently the same as those which
may still be seen there. They are —

38 Ibidem, memb. 15 recto (Placila de

Juratis el Assists). p. 81 (Thomas's Edition).

89 Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 7
recto.

40 Compare Dugda&s Warwickshire,

41 Lichfield Registers, sub anmi*.

BREWOOD FOREST. 185

i. Gu, ten Bezants, four, three, two, and one.
ii. The same, with a Chief ermine. 48

The first I take to be the coat of Belmeis Lord of Tong, as
afterwards borne by his heir — La Zouche. The second will
perhaps be the coat of Belmeis of Donington.

Bretoooto 4fore*t

B&bttde appears in Domesday as a Staffordshire Manor exclusively
belonging to the Bishop of Chester. It contained a spacious
wood still known as the Bishop's Wood, and which is noticed in
Domesday as an adjunct of the Manor. 1

But there was a large tract of land hereabouts of which neither
the Shropshire nor Staffordshire Domesday takes any notice, but
which doubtless formed an exclusive district at the time of the
Survey, and was known for more than a Century afterwards as the
Royal Forest of Brewood. Its extent may be clearly ascertained. —
Weston and Bishop's Wood mark its Northern boundary ; Brewood
and Chillington its Eastern; Albrighton, Donington, and Tong
complete the circle to the South and West.

I have before intimated that land exclusively of the Forest does
not necessarily claim any notice in Domesday. Here then is an
instance of the fact.- This district occupied hundreds of acres both
in Shropshire and Staffordshire, and the only hint which we have of
its existence, or the King's appropriation thereof, is where he is said
to have retained in his own hands some, probably adjoining, forest-
ground in Albrighton. 2

No notice has occurred to me of any Royal visit to Brewood or
its Forest before the time of King John. That Monarch, whose
daily movements for the greater part of Mb reign are well ascer-
tained, is found to have been thrice at Brewood, viz. April 4, 1200,
January 27-29, 1206, and August 18, 1207. 3 Each of these visits

42 DugdaW* Visitation of Shropshire,
to. 42.

1 Domesday, fo. 247 a. 1. The Bishops
of Coventry and Lichfield were generally
styledof Chester in the eleventh and twelfth
eenturiet.

9 Supra, p. 149.

* See the " Itinerary of King John," by
T. Buffos Hardy, Esq., — printed in his
Introduction to the Patent Bolls of that
reign.

186 BEEWOOD FOREST.

formed a halt in a journey between Lichfield and Kinver, and the
adjacent Forest was doubtless the object of attraction. Never-
theless it was King John himself who, by one grant after another,
surrendered the more imperative rights of the Crown in regard to
this district, so that after his reign we find no mention of Brewood
as of a Royal Forest.

I will quote one or two documents which indicate the progress of
this suppression —

On April 10, 1200, King John, after a visit to Brewood, having
reached Worcester, addresses a precept to Geoffrey Fitz Piers and
Hugh de Nevill (then Chief Justice of England and the Justice of
the Forest) prohibiting them from hindering the Bishop of Coventry
in inclosing a Park in his wood of Brewude ; for which Park, to be
two leagues in circumference, as well as for fortifying Eccleshall
Castle, the said Bishop had the King's License. 4

On March 13, 1204, the King being at Bruges issued his Charter
to certify that he " had altogether disforested his Forest of Browud,
in all respects pertaining to a Forest or Foresters. Wherefore the
said Forest, and the men who dwelt therein, and their heirs, were to
be disforested for ever, and quit of the King and his heirs, in all
those same respects." 6

On Feb. 4, 1206, the King informs Hugh de Nevill that he has
given the Bishop of Chester " license to make a decoy (saltorium) in
his Park of Briwud towards the Forest ; and Hugh de Nevill is to
allow it."*

From this it would appear that the former Charter was not yet in
full operation ; but the King's retention of his Forest- rights appears
more clearly and at a still later period. At the Forest Assizes of
March 1209, the following proceeding was duly registered : —

" The Knights and men who live in Brewode in Salopesire give
the King 100 merks that they and their heirs may be for ever dis-
forested, according to that which is contained in the King's Charter
which they, and the men of Staffordshire, have : — So that all they of
the County of Salopesire who have hunted or taken beasts in
Brewode within the County of Salopesir may bear their share of
the aforesaid fine, rateably with the said Knights and men, according
to their respective interests therein." 7

At these same Assizes, John Bagot and Hamo de Weston were
indicted for receiving Marksmen (Bersatores) and Hounds at

* Hot. Chart. 1 John, memb. 25 dorao. I 6 Clous. 7 John, memb. 4.

* Ibidem, 5 John, memb. 10. I 7 Placitalbresta, Salop, No. ii,memb.l.

BREWOOD FOREST.

187

Blymhill and Weston, but the result of this indictment does not
appear. 8

I find no later notice of Brewood as a Royal Forest nor of the
Crown being seized of any lands in the district. A precept of King
John, dated 26th July 1213, allows the Archbishop of Dublin to
take thirty stags in Brewud Park ; but this precept is addressed to
the Custodes of the (then vacant) See of Coventry, from which
I infer that the Bishop's Park was to supply the order. 9

CISTERCIAN NUNNERY OF BREWOOD,

NOW WHITE-LADIES.

The Forest, whose boundaries and history I have been sketching,
inclosed at the beginning of the 13th if not at the end of the 12th
Century two principal objects of interest, viz. a Convent of
Cistercian Nuns, whose house, dedicated to St. Leonard, and still
known as White-Ladies, was in Shropshire, and a Convent of Black
or Benedictine Nuns, whose house, dedicated to St. Mary, was in
Staffordshire. 10

So far from constituting one foundation, as these establishments
are sometimes taken to have done, they had nothing to connect
them but their propinquity, and nothing in common but a spirit of
mutual rivalry.

It is with the Cistercian and Shropshire House alone that we are
concerned, and this is the fittest time to speak of it. —

Though associated with Donington more than any other place, 11
the spot still retains some vestiges of its antient status. It is
parochially and manorially independent. Its ruined wall and con-
secrated precinct are still protected and venerated by members of
the Faith under which it was founded.

Its History, like itself, consists but of fragments, for, however

• Some words which seem to hare
stated the illicit objects of the accused
are unintelligible.

• Clous. 15 John, memb. 3.

10 I may, in a note, anticipate that
third and more romantio interest which
now attaches to this district. The Royal
Forest of Brewood 'gave place in course
of time to farms and homesteads, one of
which, as yet uncleared and unnamed,
was afterwards to be known as BoscobeL
Perhaps indeed, and at the very time of I

which we treat, the King's Forest was
already nourishing that sapling oak which
was destined in its maturity to shelter a
King's person.

11 Tanner makes this house to be in
Brewood Parish, and so a part of Brewood
Parish to be in Shropshire. Neither as-
sumption is correct. The Nuns were
called " of Brewood," not because their
house was in Brewood Parish but in
Brewood Forest.

18S

BREWOOD FOREST.

interesting to the Antiquary, no Chartulary of this House is known
to exist ; we have not even a definite Legend as to its origin. 18

We are told, and I believe truly, that it was founded in the time
of Richard I, or of John. It certainly was in full existence during
the latter reign, for besides the grant in Bridgnorth which King
John made to this Sisterhood, and which has been already spoken
of, 13 his Charter dated September 1, 1212, gives them some immu-
nities in regard to land at Calvreton (Co. Notts) of which they
were previously possessed. 14

Their further endowments, as far as Shropshire contributed, will
be or have been detailed in different sections of this book, and
where other Counties were concerned, must be epitomized in a
note. 16 I may however here say that all details collectively warrant
an idea that the property of this Sisterhood was acquired by gradual
and small instalments, and that each item represents the consign-
ment of some female member of a wealthy or powerful family to
the service of Religion. No more direct and apparent Patronage
of this House can be traced in its scattered history than that of the
Diocesan Bishops. No consent of the Crown seems to have been
necessary on the election of its successive Prioresses. —

The Sisterhood elected their own Superior and the Bishop con-
firmed or cancelled their choice.

No Seal of the house is known to exist; 16 no earlier Charter,

u Mr. Dukes (Antiquities, p. 201) says
indistinctively of these Black and White
Nunneries, that " it is supposed that they
were founded by Isabel Launder and
Hubert Walter about the year 1195."
Part of this supposition may rest upon a
Legend, and seems to require a passing
note. If Hubert Walter ever founded a
Nunnery, we know enough of him to
declare that it was the Cistercian rather
than the Benedictine Order which would
have had his patronage. If again he ever
founded a Shropshire Nunnery, it will have
been at about the time indicated (1195-6)
when he was Archbishop of Canterbury,
Legate of the See of Borne, Viceroy of
King Richard, and somewhat occupied in
this County. His authority in Brewood
Forest must, however, hare existed solely
under permission or direction of the
King.—

Ad to Isabel Launder, her name indeed

is associated with the Black Nunnery of
Brewood, but in a way singularly incon-
gruous with any concern in its foundation.
—She was its last Prioress, and as such
surrendered it to the Commissioners of
Henry VIII.

u Supra, Vol. I, p. 861.

14 Sot. Chart. 14 John, meoib. 5. The
King calls the Sisterhood "Nuns of
St. Leonard of Brewud." His Charter
of Nov. 15, 1200, to the rival House
describes it as the " Church of St. Mary
of Brewud." (Rot. Chart. 2 John, memb.
20).

u See Tanner's Notitia Monastica,
under ' Shropshire ;' New Monasticon,
vol. v, pp. 730, 731 ; Leland?s Itinerary,
vol. vii, p. 22; Duke*' Antiquities of
Shropshire, pp. 201, 202 ; Pope Nicholas'
Taxation, p. 162.

18 The two Seals alluded to by Mr.
Dukes are both of Black-Ladies.

BREWOOD FOREST. 180

original or transcript, have I been able to discover than that of King
John.

The names of a few Prioresses remain to us, via. —

Alditha, who has already occurred about 1225. 17 —

Cecilia, who seems to have followed her. —

Agnes, who occurs in 1256.—*

A letter of Bishop Roger de Northburgh, dated at Heywode,
10th Sept. 1326, directs search to be 'made through the Archdea-
conry of Derby for Elizabeth la Zouche and Alice de Kallerhale,
Nuns regularly professed of this House, who had left their Convent.
They are when found to be admonished to return within ten days
under pain of the Greccter Excommunication. All who aid or abet
their concealment are threatened with the like penalty. 16

A letter, by the same Bishop, as to a recent election of a Prioress
of this House, will show the names and rank of some of the Sister-
hood. 19 It bears date at Heywood, May 29, 1332, and recites as
follows : — "that the Priory of White Nuns of Brewod had recently
been vacant by resignation of Dame Joan de Huggeford, the last
Prioress; that on the third day of the vacancy the Sub-prioress and
Convent met in the Chapter House and agreed to elect a Prioress
by method of Scrutiny; whereupon Agnes de Weston (Sub-prioress),
Beatrice de Bures, and Joan Giffard were appointed Scrutineers to
collect and announce the votes of the Convent ; that they did so ;
and that the result was the election of Dame Alice de Harlegh, a
Nun of the House/' The Prioress-elect had apparently offered the
usual opposition to her own promotion, and at last given the not
less usual consent. The premises had been reported to the Bishop
whose ratification was necessary. —

He had ordered due inquiry to be made as to all particulars, and
finding the process of election to have been informal, cancels it
altogether, deprives the electing body of the power to elect on this
occasion, and appropriates the same power to himself. The Bishop
then ("in his own Pontifical Authority") appoints the same Dame
Alice de Harlegh to be Prioress, lest the Convent should suffer
harm by a protracted vacancy, and because he has heard of the
many virtues by which the said Alice is recommended to the office.
— Sir Richard Morys, Chaplain, has the Bishop's mandate to induct
and instal the new Prioress.

v Supra, Vol. I, p. 861. I * Ibidem fcgitter, ii, fo. 210.

18 Lichfield Begiater, iii, £6. 19. I

ii. 25

190

BREWOOD FOREST.

. Dame Alice de Harley died in 1349, when Beatrice de Dehq,
Prioress-elect, and her Convent, agreed to submit such election to
the order of the same Bishop. The Bishop in a letter dated at
Heywod, July 29, 1349, appoints the said Beatrice to be Prioress,
and orders the Archdeacon of Stafford to instal her. 20

At this period the site and local possessions of the Priory
extended to three carucates of land, which, as we have seen under
Donington, were estimated to be in that Parish.

In 27 Henry VIII (1535-6), Dame Margaret, Prioress of this
House, returned its gross annual income at £31. 1*. 4rf., its out-
goings at £13. 10*. Sd., and its net income at £17. 10*. Sd. —

The demesne lands at White Ladies contributed £6. 13*. 4rf. of
the gross income. The balance was made up by rents in Notting-
hamshire, Staffordshire, and Shropshire. The latter arose from
small parcels of land at Higley, Chatwall, Rudge, Bold, Sutton
(Maddock), Rowton, High-Ercall, Berrington, Shrewsbury, Bridg-
north, Ingardine, Tedstill, Beckbury, and Humfreston. The
Advowsons of Muntford (Salop) and Tydshull (Derbyshire) also
were appropriate to White-Ladies, and a pension from Bold Chapel,
already alluded to. —

Among the outgoings of the House was a chief rent of 10*. to
the Lord of Donyngton; an annual fee of 16*. Sd. to Thomas
Gifforde, Esq. their Seneschal; and a Salary of £5. for the Chaplain,
who by appointment of the Nuns performed services within their
Monastery for the souls of their Founders. 81

The Ministers' Accounts of 28 Henry VIII (1536-7) exhibit the
gross income of this House as £35. 3*. Sd. — a difference arising from
the addition of a few items of revenue, the alteration of others,
and the valuation of the Demesne-lands and Manor being raised to
£10. 9*. 6d. 8 *

The Architectural Remains at White-Ladies consist of a
Chapel in the Norman style with round Arches.

Prom an ornament over the North Door, I should assign the

work to the latter part of the twelfth Century. On the north side

is an open round Arch which might have led into a Transept or

Chapel. t t t>

r J. L. Petit.

90 Ibidem, fo. 224.

» Valor Ecclesiastic**, iii, 193, where
the return is properly classified with other
Shropshire Houses, while that of the

Black-Ladies (p. 103) is with equal accu-
racy given under Staffordshire.
23 Monasticon, t, 731.

191

Cana*

Without hazarding a conjecture as to the etymology of this name
I will proceed at once to state what Domesday says of the Manor,
whilst as yet it was held in Demesne by the first Norman Earl of
Shrewsbury.

"The same Earl holds Tuange. Earl Morcar held it. Here are
in hides geldable. In demesne are mi ox-teams; and (there are)
vin serfs, and in villains, and n boors with in ox-teams. Here
is one league of wood. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was
worth £11. (annually) ; now it is worth £6." 1

If there be -a place in Shropshire calculated alike to impress the
Moralist, instruct the Antiquary, and interest the Historian, that
place is Tong. It was for centuries the abode or heritage of men,
great either for their wisdom or their virtues, eminent either from
their station or their misfortunes.

The retrospect of their annals alternates between the Palace and
the Feudal Castle, between the Halls of Westminster and the Council-
Chamber of Princes, between the battle-field, the dungeon, and
the grave.

The History of the Lords of this Manor is in fact the biography
of Princes and Prelates, Earls and Barons, Statesmen, Generals,
and Jurists.

These are the great names and reminiscences with which the place
is associated ! — the Saxon Earls of Mercia, brave, patient, and most
unfortunate; — victims of inexorable progress: then their three
Norman successors, one wise and politic, another chivalrous and
benevolent, the last madly ambitious and monstrously cruel ; — then
the Majesty of England represented by Henry I, a Prince who, in
ability for ruling, almost equalled his Father, and has been surpas-
sed by none of his Successors ; — then the sumptuous and viceregal
pride of De Belmeis, Bishop, General, Statesman, and withal very
Priest; — his collateral heirs with their various and wide-spread
interests, dim in the distance of time, but traceable to a common
origin; — the adventurous genius and loyal faith of Brittany

represented in La Zouche; tales of the oscillating favouritism

1 Domesday, fo. 253, b. 2.

ii. 25 §

192

TONG.

and murderous treachery of King John; — overweening ambition
and saddest misfortune chronicled in the name of De Braose;
— a Harcourt miscalculating the signs of his time and ruined
by the error; — a race of Pembruges. whose rapid succession
tells of youth and hope and the early grave ; — then the open-handed
and magnificent Vernons ; lastly, Stanley, a name truly English,
and ever honourable in English ears, yet for one 2 of whom it was
feted to add a last flower to this chaplet of ancestral memories, to cut
short the associations which five centuries had grouped around this
fair inheritance.

Such summarily is the history of which I am now to give a few
of the earlier details. —

That the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury should retain in demesne
the richest Manors of his Saxon Predecessors was an act of compara-
tive moderation. Tong and Donington were of this class at a
period when a fertile, level, and well-watered soil can alone have
constituted Manorial value. That the two Manors thus combined
were objects of the Earl's special regard we may learn from the
only fact which remains to us of his dealings therewith. —

Within ten years after Domesday, he founded a Church in each of
them. Churches were at that period so thinly scattered that the
necessity of two so near together can have suggested itself only to a
mind intent upon the welfare of a certain locality, and the district,
thus cared for by the Earl, was doubtless honoured by his frequent
presence. —

There were woods wherein he might exercise his favorite diver-
sion, waters which could supply so devout a Catholic with the
proper means of abstinence, to say nothing of the salt-works
attached to Donington, — those essential adjuncts of a great feudal
establishment.

On the forfeiture of Earl Robert de Belesme, Tong and Donington
will have been of the Demesne of King Henry I. How long they
continued so, we know not; we only know the fact, but not the
time or particulars, of a grant which that Monarch must have made
of both to his Viceroy, Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London.

Here then is a fitting opportunity to introduce a notice of this
remarkable man whose public career for forty years was more or
less associated with Shropshire.

2 Sir Edward Stanley, KB., Father of
the beautiful, but too famous, Vcnetia,
Lady Digby. She was her Father's Co-

heir, and, had Sir Edward not Bold the
estate, Tong might have further been asso-
ciated with the name of Sir Kenelm Digby.

TONG.

193

It is intimated, by a respectable authority, 8 that Richard de
Belmeis was, in the first instance, largely and confidentially
employed by Earl Roger de Montgomery. If so, he was doubtless
largely rewarded ; but being a Clerk, and his preferment probably
Ecclesiastical, we cannot appeal to Domesday for any verification
of this statement. 4 Nevertheless we find Richard de Belmeis
prominent among the great men who attested the Charters of
Earl Roger, and a witness also of all the Charters, genuine and
doubtful, which are assigned to Earl Hugh, in the Register of
Shrewsbury Abbey.

His non-participation in the treason of Robert de Belesme iB
apparent and most probably recommended him to the notice and
patronage of Henry I. Here I must again quote the Welsh
Chronicle for specific details which can be supplied from no other
source, but whose veracity is warranted by a most extraordinary
coherence with less relevant documents. —

Three Sons of Blethyn ap Convyn, Prince of Powis, had, in the
first instance, allied themselves to Belesme, but the promises of
King Henry had subsequently detached Jorwerth, the most
influential though not the eldest of the three, from the confederacy.
On the fall of Belesme, about August 1102, Jorwerth went to the
King's Court to claim his reward, but without success. The
King afterwards, probably mistrusting his intentions, invited
Jorwerth to a conference at Shrewsbury. Jorwerth came, was
accused of treason by the King's Commissioners and thrown
into prison. This was at the close of the year 1102. The King's
Commissioners who were sent to Shrewsbury on the occasion were
''Richard de Belmersh or Beleasmo, afterwards appointed by
King Henry to be Warden of the Marches and governour of the
Countie of Salop : Walter Constable, the father of Milo Earle
of Hereford, and Rayner the King's lieutenant in the County of
Salop."—

If this be correct it shows us that Rainald, the Domesday Sheriff
of Shropshire, had not joined Belesme's rebellion, but was in
office at a subsequent period. It also shows that Richard de

* PowwfrC^nfcfe, p. 120 (Edit. 1584).
" Cheefe dooer about Roger Mountgomery ,
Karl of Salop."

4 Domesday does oot record the names
of Church Incumbents or Church Digni-
taries) but the Earl had large patronage
of this kind, and we know from Ordericus

that he specially affected the society of
wise Clerks. Richard de Belmeis' pro*
bable tenure of a lay fee at Meadowley
has been already pointed out (Vol. I,
p. 149), and I am by no means sure that
he does not occur elsewhere in Domesday,
and in a similar relation.

194

TONG.

Belmeis did not become Sheriff or Viceroy immediately on
Belesme's fall.— And the latter fact can be substantiated by other
evidence. —

A Precept of King Henry restores, to Ralph Bishop of Chichester,
land near the wall of that City, which he had held " in the day
of Robert de Belismo." This precept is addressed to B. de
Belmes, Hugh de Faleyse, and all the King's Barons of Sussex.
It shows Richard de Belmeis in the King's employ indeed, and
as concerned with the escheated honours of Robert de Beksme,
but not yet holding office in Shropshire. And thiB precept
passed " in Council at Westminster ; " — assuredly that very Council
which the King is said to have held there at Michaelmas 1102.*

Within the next two months Belmeis will Jiave been sent to
Shrewsbury on the commission already described, and, as I believe,
for more permanent objects. In fact, there is every reason to
think that this Commission closed the Shrievalty of Eainald, and
that Belmeis succeeded him, — but with fuller powers than an
ordinary Sheriff, and having a deputy (Fulcoius) to discharge
the routine duties of the office. This will appear from another
precept of King Henry, the object of which was to support the
title of the Monks of St. Remigius-at-Rheims to certain lands in
Shropshire. This precept is addressed to " Richard de Belmeis,
and Fulqueius the Sheriff and all the Barons of Salopesire." It
is dated "at Westminster, in Council/' and issued certainly at
Christmas 11O2.

The Chartulary of St. Remigius-at-Rheims supplies us with
another, and perhaps later precept of King Henry, which I quote
here merely to show that Belmeis was on that occasion addressed
simply as Sheriff of Salop ; 7 but I have before alluded to the

* Monatticon, viii, 1168, No. xxviii.
William de Werelwast, sole witness of
this deed, attests many of the King's
Charters at this period. He was sent as
Ambassador to the Pope in 1103, and
was consecrated Bishop of Exeter in
1107.

6 We have two copies of this Deed
(Monasticon, vii, p. 1043 ; v ; and
p. 1099), one of which serves to correct
the other. The sole witness, Walt*? or
Waldric, Chaplain, attests other deeds of
the period; but immediately afterwards
he became Chancellor, and as Waldric or
Walter, Chancellor, attests various deeds,

the earliest of which bears date Jan. 13,
1103. Thus we obtain the limits within
which this precept issued, viz. between
Michaelmas 1102 (when Belmeis was not
yet Viceroy) and Jan. 1103 (when Wal-
dric was Chancellor). The Court which
King Henry held at Westminster (Christ-
mas 1102) is noticed by the Chroniclers
and supplies the exact date. ''

7 Monasticon, vii, p. 1043 j vii ; and
p. 1099. The precept is also addressed
to Robert Bishop of Chester, and Nicholas
Sheriff of Stafford. It is tested by Henry
Earl of Warwick, at Wallham.

TONO. 10S

complex nature of his office, and the variety of names by which it
was consequently described. 8

Within the first five years of his provincial trust we have a
well-recorded instance of his " violence and might/' followed
however by the exercise of milder powers in his capacity of a
Mediator and Judge. 9 Of that however hereafter. We now pass
to his ecclesiastical career. — '

On Whitsunday (May 24), 1108, he was elected to the vacant
See of London, and, not being in foil Orders, was ordained Priest
on on? of the following Ember days (May 27, 39, or 30), by
Archbishop Anselm at Mortlake. 10

In July of this year the King was waiting on the coast of
Sussex to embark for Normandy. Anselm came, at the King's
request, to the sea-port that he might give the King his blessing,
ere he sailed. On the night of his arrival Anselm was seized
with sudden illness, and when morning came was so weak as to be
unable to cross an arm of the sea which separated his hospice
from that of the King. The Monarch, hearing thereof, sent the
Bishops of Exeter and Winchester to excuse Anselm's attendance,
and to recommend perfect rest. He however commended himself
in his journey to the Archbishop's regard, his Son, whom he left
behind, and his whole Kingdom, to the Archbishop's care. He
besought him moreover, by the love he bore him, that he would
consecrate Richard, Bishop-Elect of London, at Chichester, since
that City was near, and there were Bishops at hand who could
assist in the ceremony.

The reason, says Eadmer, why the King was so urgent about this
matter was alleged to be as follows : — " because the said Richard was
a most able man in secular affairs and the King was arranging to
send him, on the instant, far off to the Western Marches of England,
there to manage the King's concerns. Anselm had special reasons
for not consecrating Belmeis at Chichester, but to oblige the King
he performed the ceremony in his own Chapel at Pageham, on
Sunday, July 26, the Bishops of Winchester, Salisbury, Chichester,
and Exeter assisting." 11

8 Supra, Vol. I, p. 246.

9 3alop Chartulary, No. 1.
* Eadmer, p. 96.

11 Eadmer, pp. 96, 97. I have been
particular in giving these details, because
in the Sheriff* of Shropshire (p. 31)

Belmeis is assumed to have relinquished ascertained truth are wonderful.

his provincial office on his Consecration.
The probability is that he returned to
Shropshire with larger powers than ever. —
I by no means adopt the reflection
which in the same page is cast upon
PoweVe Chronicle. Its coincidences with

196 TONG.

Thus much from the Diary of Eadmer, the friend and companion
of Anselm himself, and by far the most accurate of the Chro-
niclers of that age.

On August 9, 1 108, " Bishop Belmeis assisted at the consecration
of Radulph Bishop of Rochester, and made a handsome offering
to his Mother-Church of Canterbury, as indeed the King had desired
him to do."

Now, probably, Belmeis returned to Shropshire, for the Welsh
Chronicler describing him as " Richard, Bishop of London, whom
the King had appointed Warden of the Marches/' says he was at
Shrewsbury in this year. There was a disturbance in Wales, for
Owen ap Cadogan ap Blethyn, a Prince of the house of Powis, had
forcibly carried off the wife and children of an Englishman, — Gerald
Steward of Pembroke. The Bishop is represented as forthwith
treating with Ithell and Madoc, sons of Riryd ap Blethyn (and so
cousins of Owen) whom with other Welsh Chieftains he bribed to
take or kill the offender, and revenge the insult offered to the King
of England. Owen escaped to Ireland, but returning within the
year was fortunate in finding his enemy Madoc ap Riryd at variance
with the Bishop.

The latter had, it seems, required Madoc to deliver up certain
English Felons whom he was harbouring. Madoc refused, and his
quarrel with the Viceroy led to his reconciliation with Owen, and
their joint attack, in the following year, on the lands of all Norman
or English settlers in Wales.

Towards the end of May 1109, King Henry returned from Nor-
mandy, and the Viceroy of Shropshire was forthwith in attendance
at Court. Archbishop Anselm being dead, it fell to this aspiring
Prelate's lot to consecrate Thomas, Archbishop of York. This cere-
mony took place on June 27, 1109, in the Church of St. Paul's,
London.

In the Autumn of this year the King visited Shropshire and
Nottinghamshire. It was at Castle- Holgate that he issued his writ,
appointing Hervey, Bishop of Bangor, to the newly created See of
Ely. It was also, as I suppose, during this Royal visit that the
I Bishop of London adjudicated, in the King's presence, that suit

i about a Prebend of Morville which has been already described. 13

i The Bishop of London passed on with the King to Nottingham, and

13 Supra, Vol. I, p. 82. The Assessors I Pererel, Roger and Robert Corbet, and
in this trial were Alaa Fits Flaald, Hamo I Herbert son of Helgot.

TONG. 197

on Oct. 17, attended the General Council, at which was finally
settled the constitution of the See of Ely.

At Christinas 1109, the King held another great Court at London,
and with more than usual pomp. Thomas, Archbishop of York,
was in attendance, expecting that, the See of Canterbury being
vacant, he would have to celebrate mass before the King and place
the Crown on the King's head. The Bishop of London however
led the King by the hand into Church and performed the said
ceremonies. Afterwards, meeting at the King's table, the two Pre-
lates again disputed about their precedence, whereupon the King
dismissed them both to dine at home, not wishing to hear their
quarrel. The Bishop of London's conduct on this occasion was
justified by him on two grounds, viz. that being Dean of Canterbury
he was the proper representative of the Primacy ; and that his Con-
secration having preceded the Archbishop's he was, according to St.
Gregory's Institutes, the superior. Eadmer, who relates all this,
knew in fact that it was for the sake of attaining this precedence
that Belmeis had hurried forward his own consecration, though
other grounds (as above related) had been given out to the public.
Eadmer had the truth not only from private friends of the Bishop,
but from the Bishop's own acknowledgment in familiar conversation
with Eadmer himself. 13

Belmeis now probably returned to Shropshire, where the unsettled
state of the Border must have required his constant presence.
Owen and Madoc, before mentioned, had wound up their enormities
by the murder of a Bishop, William de Brabant, which so enraged
the King that they thought it prudent to retire for a time to Ireland.
The year 1110 however found Madoc again in the Principality and
ready to purchase the favour of Belmeis. This he effected by
murdering Cadogan ap Blethyn, Owen's Father, whom, with his
said son Owen, the Bishop most specially detested. Madoc was
rewarded by Belmeis with a grant of lands, but Owen, returning at
the same time from Ireland, effected a separate reconciliation with
the King, in person.

This is the last direct notice which we have of the interference of
Richard de Belmeis in Welsh affairs. The grossest treachery seems
to have pervaded this part of his policy, but it was perhaps balanced
by specific circumstances with which, of course, the Welsh Chro-
niclers do not acquaint as. They draw, however, a general picture
of Wales and its Rulers, faithful enough, and which warrants a

u Eadmer, p. 106.

ii. 26

198 TONG.

suspicion of the very worst particulars. The King invaded the
Country in 1114, but his success, whether in arms or negotiation,
had no permanent results. Utter subjugation came in the course
of ages to cure those inherent evils, which Wales self-governed must
have fostered and suffered from, till the end of time.

Of the duration of Beimels' power in Shropshire we have no
direct information. The apparent dates of the various precepts
which the King addressed to him in that capacity, must suffice for
our information on this head. The latest of these I have already
quoted, as having passed between 1121 and 1123. 14 His resignation
at a somewhat later date will appear probable from circumstances
presently to be mentioned.

Of Belmeis as a Jurist, we know little more than the great
authority with which he was invested, and which, within his Pro-
vince, was equal to that of Royalty itself. What appears more
extraordinary still is, that he should be found presiding at a purely
Ecclesiastical Synod of the district. His judgments, the few which
remain, belong properly to the localities which they affected. Two
of them are preserved to us in his own words as he recorded them
in the royal form and style of Letters Patent. The first was given
apparently about a. d. 1110, in a Court composed of Church Digni-
taries and Laymen which sat at Wistanstow. The second was his
decision given in an Archidiaconal Synod at Castle Holgate, about
1115. 15 The extraordinary prescriptive rights of Wenlock Priory
were on both occasions in question, and Belmeis supported them
with most determined and transparent zeal.

Something more should be said of his, not very frequent,
appearance in the King's Court or in company with his fellow
Suffragans, something too of his connection with his own See and
Diocese.

On August 1111, he was with the King at Waltham (Hants),
where the latter was waiting to embark for Normandy. In Sep-
tember 1114, he attended the King when similarly delayed at
Burnham (Essex). On June 27, 1115, he was present at the En-
thronement of Archbishop Ralph at Canterbury; and, on Dec. 28

14 Supra, Vol. T, p. 246. He is both
addressed in, and stands first witness to,
a Charter of Henry I, which passed at
Shrewsbury in the same interval. (Salop
42hartulary, 46, o.)

King Edward treats the Bishop's acts
with the same respect as those of any
Xing his predecessor ; — e.g. "Inspeximus
litteras patentee quas Celebris memories
Bicardus Londinensis Episcopus fecit

u Pat. 22 Edw. Ill, p. 3, memb. 34. I Wenlocensi Ecclesise in hsc verba.*'

TONG. 199

following, attended with the King and Queen at the Dedication of the
Abbey Church of St. Alban's. On April 4, 1120, he assisted at the
Consecration of David, Bishop of Bangor; on January 16, 1121, at
that of Richard, Bishop of Hereford ; and on October 2, 1 121, at that
of Gregory, Bishop of Dublin ; which last two took place at Lambeth.
In this same year he attests Royal Charters at Windsor and West-
minster.

On February 16, 1123, William Curboil, Prior of St. Osyth's
(a house of Belmeis' foundation), was consecrated Archbishop of
Canterbury. William Gifford, Bishop of Winchester, performed the
ceremony, apparently because the Bishop of London was at the time
suffering from paralysis. 18

He will, however, have affixed his own signature to a great
Charter which Henry I expedited, later in the same year, to the
Church of Exeter. 17

William of Malmsbury, speaking of Maurice, Belmeis' prede-
cessor in the See of London, commends him for his magnificent
improvements in St. Paul's Cathedral. " But such," he adds, " was
the extravagance of his design that he left his successors to pay the
cost of his vast undertakings. And at length, when Richard his
Successor had assigned all the Episcopal Revenue to the building,
supporting himself and his kindred from other sources, he seemed as
though he accomplished nothing in proportion to such a prodigal
outlay. Wherefore as years passed by he grew weary and despairing
of the good intent which he entertained in his early Episcopacy, and
by degrees fainted therein."

" There is a place," continues Malmsbury, " in London Diocese,
commonly called Cic (Chich) by the East-Saxons, where rests Saint
Osyth, that Virgin famous for miracles. This house had
Richard amplified with certain grants of land and the introduction
of Regular Canons. There were here, and still are, Clerks of
noted learning; and a joyful harvest, so to speak, clothed the
whole country under the example of men thus trained. And the
Bishop himself was at one time minded to retire hither and
cast off the ensnarements of the world, especially as he had
experienced some warning from a chronic paralytic disorder; but
the habit of power restrained his mind, diseased as it was with such
allurements. William, who succeeded Ralph in the Archiepiscopacy,
was the first Prior of this House, who, though a Clerk, and at first

M Diceto, p. 601. | '' Mo»aslico*> ii, 639, 20.

200

TONO.

dreaded by the Monks (of Canterbury), yet did nothing to cause
them regret, being a man of sound religion, great affability, and
neither slothful nor hasty." 18

Richard de Belmeis, besides his greater donations to St. Paul's
Cathedral and the Priory of St. Osyth, was also a Benefactor to the
Nunnery of Clerkenwell.

There is much probability that at the last, he retired to St.
Osyth' s and died there. The latter event took place on January
16, 1127. When he felt his end approaching, he was careful to
make formal record of a certain act of restitution which he owed
to the Abbey of Shrewsbury. His Confessors were his own
Nephew William, Dean of St. Paul's, and Fulk, a Prebendary of
the same Church, who had succeeded William Corboil in the
Priory of St. Osyth. The said Prior certified this act of restitu-
tion in a series of letters addressed to the King, to William,
Archbishop of Canterbury, to Bernard, Bishop of St. David's, and to
G (Geoffrey), Abbot of Salop. —

The Archbishop transmitted his intelligence to Pagan Fitz John
(then Sheriff) and all the Barons of Shropshire. 19

This restitution related to the Manor of Betton. Another, not
so circumstantially recorded, was of the Church of Donington. It
has been already noticed. A third was of the Church of Tong,
and perhaps took place before the Bishop was in extremis. It was
tested by Roger, Archdeacon of Salop, Clarembald the Clerk, and
John, Clerk of the Queen. 20

The Canons of St. Osyth procured the interment of their dis-
tinguished Benefactor, within their Priory Church, where a marble
tomb long bore the following inscription : —

Hicjacet Richardus Beauveis, cognomine Rufus, London : Epis~
copus, vir probus et grandrevus, per totam vitam laboriosus, fundator
noster religiosus, et qui multa bona nobis et ministris ecclesise suae
Sancti Pauli contulit. Obiit xvi Januarii, mcxxvii. Cujus animae
propitietur Altissimus.* 1

Belmeis, during his occupancy of the See of London, appears to
have conferred some Prebendal preferment on his relations, and one
at least of these would seem to have had something more than a

w W. Malmsbury, p. 134 b.

»• Salop Chartulary, Nos. 22, 28.

20 Ibidem, No. 329 b. The Queen,
whose Clerk attested this deed, was,
I doubt not, Adeliza, who bad been pre-

sented with the Count/ of Salop at a
great Court held in the Christmas of
1126.

SI Weever*t Sepulchral Monuments,
p. 607.

TONG.

201

collateral claim upon his consideration. We have nothing however
here to do with the Prebendaries of St. Paul's.

Belmeis' successor in all those Churches and lands in Shropshire,
which having first belonged to Godebald (the Priest) and Robert
son of Godebald, had been conferred by Henry I on the deceased
Prelate, was Richard de Belmeis his Nephew. The latter had a
special grant of the same from the King, which is preserved, and
must have passed about August 1127.** This second Richard de
Belmeis was son of Walter de Belmeis, brother of Richard de
Belmeis I. I shall have to notice him again as Founder or Co*
founder of Lilleahall Abbey, and also as eventually occupying the
See of London.

The temporal heir of Richard de Belmeis (I), was another son of
his Brother Walter, viz. Philip de Belmeis, of whom as succeeding
to the Lordships of Tong and Donington I am now to speak.

When Richard de Belmeis on his deathbed directed the restora-
tion of Betton to Salop Abbey, he intimated the possible alternative
that his Nephew Philip might be able to re-obtain it by the good will
and free concession of the Monks. Fulk, Prior of St. Osyth, before
the Bishop had expired, informed Philip de Belmeis, his Knights
and serving-men, of the expressions of his Uncle and the state of
the case. It appears however that Philip did not acquiesce in the
proposed restitution. A suit in the King's Court ensued, and a
trial was to have been held before the King and the Archbishop of
Canterbury at Woodstock, probably about Easter 1127. —

Then however Philip de Belmeis made default (defecit a jus-
titiA) and Betton was restored to the Abbey, Archbishop William,
Legate of the Apostolick See, certifying the same to all the
faithful.* 3

Philip de Belmeis next appears in litigation with Roger de
Clinton, Bishop of Lichfield. Philip had seized upon some land
(probably lying between Tong and Brewood) to which the Bishop
had a claim. The latter was consequently, in 1130, indebted two
merks to the King, his fine " that Philip de Belmeis might try legal
issue with him (placitet versus eum)" as to the land so seized.* 4

Between this time and the year 1135, we find Philip de Belmeis
holding three Knights' Fees in the Honour of Arundel. 25 We have

s Monartico*, vi, p. 262, No. ii.

* Salop Chartulary, No. 66.

* Sot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, Staffordshire,
p. 76.

* Liber Niger, i, 65.— The Liber Niger
is mainly a return of the yean 1166-6,
and the much earlier date which I thus
confidently assign to a particular section

202

TONG.

already seen his Uncle the Bishop, interested in the County of
Sussex, and the Nephew's tenure there had doubtless devolved to
him from that source.

It was probably this Sussex Tenure which, in tbe year 1138,
separated Philip de Belmeis from the cause for which the greater
Feodaries of Shropshire were contending, and associated his inter-
ests with those of an Usurper. When Stephen, in August of that
year, was besieging Shrewsbury, Philip de Belmeis was with him,
and attested the Charter whereby the- King confirmed the then
recent foundation of Buildwas Abbey. 26

thereof needs explanation. I enter into
the question more fully as I shall again
have to quote this document with refer-
ence to Shropshire names. — The Earl of
Arundel making a return in 1165-6 of
the Knights'-Fees in the Honour of
Arundel, prefaces his statement thus : —

" Our Lord King Henry, on occasion
of a certain dispute which arose among
the Knights of the Honour of Arundel
about a certain Army of Wales, chose
four of the better, more legal, and more
ancient Knights, and caused them to make
recognition of the Knight's seryice of the
Honour ; and he was unwilling thereafter
to listen to any one touching the legality
of those four Knights' decision and their
sworn return. And this was their re-
cognition," &o.

This preface (which I translate from the
original and not from Hearne's inaccurate
transcript), is followed by a list of the
lands and persons on which and on. whom
the said four Knights assessed the relative
proportions of service. Among. them is
the name of Philip de Belmeis, assessed
at three fees ; of Alan de Dunstanvill,
assessed at eight fees ; of Hugo de Faleise,
assessed at fire fees ; and of Savaric, as-
sessed at three fees. Then follows a further
statement made by the Earl himself of
such Feoffments as he had since granted
in the Honour.

My position is, that the King Henry
alluded to was Henry I and not Henry II,
and that the " army of Wales" must have
been levied in or before 1135, when Henry I
died.

Mr. Stapleton has already pointed out

that the return made by the four Knights
was referable to an earlier period than
1165. He identified the "army of Wales' '
spoken of with that of 1159 (meaning,
I suppose, 1157). Vide Rot. Norman, ii,
xxxiij.

The same internal evidence which led
Mr. Stapleton to that discovery leads me
still further. Savaric, one of the Tenants
of the Honour, was dead in Stephen's
reign, and his Son and Successor, Balph,
dead before 1157. Alan de Dunstanvill
also was dead before 1156, and Hugh
de Faleise, a third Tenant, has occurred
to us as a man of great trust in Sussex
fifty years before Mr. Stapleton's date of
1159. Less proof than this would suffice ;
for, having once established the date of
the four Knights' assessment to be earlier
than 1156, we must go back at least to
1135. There was no intermediate "army
of Wales" levied by any King Henry.
Now Henry I meditated an invasion of
Wales in 1135. We do not indeed hear
of the levy of an English army on that
occasion, and the King's immediate death
(Dec. 1135) is hardly consistent with his
alleged unwillingness to disturb the as-
sessment, if of the current year. Yet
I cannot help referring the whole matter
to that year. At all events the assessment
appears to be later than 1130.

* Monasticon, v, 856, No. L Philip
de Belmeis had also witnessed the
Foundation Charter itself, which was by
Bishop Roger de Clinton, and passed in
1136 or early in 1137. (Blakeway'sMSS.j
Parochial Notices, i, 76.)

TONG.

203

Beimels' personal interest in that House, was soon afterwards
shown more substantially by a grant of his own. The original deed
is extant and as a document of great interest and bearing upon a
very obscure period of County History, must be given entire.

iji Notum sit omnibus hominibus et amicis meis tarn Francis
quam Anglis quod ego Philippus de Belmes dono et concedo
ecclesise Sancte Mariae et Sancti Ceddse de Bildewas et Abbati
omnique Conventui ejusdem loci terram quae fuit Selferi de Roche -
lai pro salute animse mese totiusque prolis mese, liberam et quietain
ab omni temporali servitute. Preterea sciatis me concessisse illis
omnia necessaria sua simul cum pasnagio suo de bosco meo de
Luseiard et de Brewud et communem pasturem de Thonga in
bosco et piano. Igitur tarn pro hiis quam pro aliis beneficiis pre-
fato loco a me adjunctis ego et Matilda uxor mea et heredes mei
suscipimur in fraternitatem ejusdem ecclesise de Bildewas et matris
ecclesise de Savinneio et omnium aliarum ad illam pertinentium.
Quapropter precipio et precor omnes qui mihi sint amici ut eandem
elemosynam manuteneant et defendant sicut diligunt salutem
animae me» atque meorum. Unde etiam in confirmacionem hujus
mese donacionis presentemcartam sigillo meo munio et testes assigno.
Testes, Robertus de Belmes, Herbertus de Castello Nicholas frater
ejus. Philippus filius Odonis, Helias de Sai, Johannes Bagot,
Robertus de Girros, Hugo de Sai, Robertus Capellanus, Thuroldus
de Mainnio.

Signum Philippi de Belmes.

Signum Philippi filii ejus.

Signum Matild* uxoris ejus
Signum R filii ejus «

This Charter must have passed about 1138 or 1139. It shows
Ruckley to have been at that period a member of the Manor of
Tong. It shows the latter to have comprised the Lizard and to
have extended far towards Brewood. It gives us a list of witnesses
to which I shall often have to recur. It furnishes the names of
the Grantor's wife and heir, and we shall see that his second son
Ranulph must be the person indicated by the initial letter-R.

* Charter in possession of George
Pritchard, Esq., of Broseley. Of the
two Seals originally attached to this in-
Taluable document, the first (that of the
Grantor) is broken, the second (probably
that of his wife) is gone.

The marks were eridently added by the
parties under whose names they stand.
The deed is translated in Mr. Dukes'
Appendix (page Ixt) and supposed to be
of date " about 1160."

204 TONO.

It illustrates the connexion in which Philip stood to the Lord of
Castle Holgate (Herbert), viz. as his Tenant at Meadowley. Its
further significances I must at present postpone. —

Philip de Belmeis* patronage of the Order of Savigny was for
some reason or other soon withdrawn.

Not ten years after his grant to Buildwas, he is seen to be
promoting, if not himself founding an Abbey in the immediate
neighbourhood of Tong, and of a totally different class. Nay
further, his mode of establishing this second House must have
materially diminished the value of his former benefits to Buildwas.

Philip de Belmeis was in fact the originator of that great
Augustine institution which was, through the further favour of his
Brother Richard, eventually to find an establishment at Lilleshall.
His deed of Foundation runs as follows, —

" To his Lord and most beloved Father, Roger the venerable
Bishop of Chester, and to all other prelate and subject sons of Holy
Church, Philip de Belmeis, greeting in the Lord.

Know, O Father, and .0 beloved brotherhood of Prelates and
Subjects, that I have given and conceded in lasting almoigne and
perpetual possession, for the souls of my Father and Mother, of
my wife, and of my other Ancestors ; and for the health of myself,
my wife and children (filiorum), all the land which is contained
between Wathlingestreete and Merdiche, for the foundation of a
Church in honour of the Holy Mary, Mother of God, to Canons
of the Order of Arroasia, who having come from the Church of
St. Peter at Dorchester, are there regularly serving God and
St. Mary ; (I give it) free and quit, and absolved of all secular
service and exaction. I concede also to them advantage of the
neighbouring woods, both for fire and for building materials.
I have also added the Church of St. Elena of Aessevi ( Ashby, Co.
Leicester), with the Church of Blackfordbi, to which sixty acres
are attached, and with its other appurtenances. I have further
added in the same vill of Aessibi all that land of my demesne,
which is called Suarteclive, and also the land of Haco Sutor;
and tithe of my mills in the same vill ; and tithes of my herds,
viz., of mares and colts; and tithes of my pannage; and free
pannage for their swine, and advantage of my wood, both for fire
and building materials. Of this donation then and concession these
underwritten are Witnesses : Robert, Bishop of Hereford ; Philip
son of Philip de Belmis, who is not only a witness but a Promoter
and Conceder (Conditor et Concessor) of the aforesaid almoigne ;

TONG.

205

Dame Matilda, daughter of William Meschin, 28 wife of Philip de
Belmis aforesaid ; Herbert de Castello, Hugo de Cuilli, Hugo de
Say, Philip Pitz Odo and Roger his Brother; Roger de Ewias,
Robert Clerk, Walter de Aessebi. Farewell in the Lord to thy
Holiness. Amen/' *•

This Charter passed undoubtedly after the grant to Buildwas
above recited and before May 1145 ; for at the latter date, these
Arroasian Canons, having migrated from Tong to Donington
Wood, under the auspices of Richard de Belmeis, Dean of St.
Alkmund's, were called Canons of Duninton. They found soon
afterwards a more permanent resting place at Lilleshall, and when
settled there, continued to enjoy all the benefits conferred on their
fraternity by Philip de Belmeis. The Lizard however instead, of
being the Site of their house, became as we shall see, only a
Grange thereof.

There are other points in Philip de Belmeis' Charter which
require notice. Two boundaries of the land granted for the
foundation of a Church are named. These are Watling Street,
the Northern boundary, and Meredich, which I conclude to have
been the Eastern, and identical with the rivulet which flowing
from North to South, now supplies a spacious artificial lake
known as Tong-Mere. The Western limit of Belmeis' grant will
consequently have been the Manor of Idsall, its Southern his own
domain of Tong.

The Lizard Orange, thus bounded, is still in name a Orange,
and though the locality be otherwise unremarkable, it has its
interest to the Antiquary, as having been the germ and once
proposed site of an establishment, which grew elsewhere to great
magnificence.

* It does not appear who William
Meschin, Father of Matilda de Belmeis,
was. Dugdale's account (Baronage^ i,89)
of William de Meachinea, Lord of Coup-
land, and Brother of Bannlpb Sari of
Cheater, would not, aa far aa date i» con-
cerned, exoept him from being the person
named. But thia William de Meachinea
appears eventually to have been repre-
aented by a daughter and sole heir, Cecily
wife of Bobert de Bomely. However,
Dugdale's, and indeed all other accounts
of the Barony of Be Meachinea, are either
confused or inconclusive, and I think it

possible that farther evidence may connect
Matilda with that house.

The second William D'Albini of Bel-
voir is also said to have been surnamed
Meachinea. A probability that his family
might intermarry with that of Belmeis,
arises from their relative positions in the
same County (Leicestershire); but the
era of the Albini specified is too late to
allow of his having been Father of Matilda
da Belmeis.

38 Monasticon t vi, 262 $ iii ; — where the
document is accurately printed in the
original Latin.

206

TONG.

It is probable that Philip de Beimels' possession of Ashby
(now Ashby de la Zouch) and Blackfordby in Leicestershire
arose under a grant thereof by Henry I, to his Uncle the Bishop.

Be that as it may, we have now seen Philip seized of lands in
Shropshire, Sussex, and Leicestershire. It is almost certain that
he had Manors also in Staffordshire, and probable that some estates
in Cheshire and other Counties which were held by his heirs were
derived from him.

The last feature which I shall here notice in his Charters is that
attestation by Tenants of the Honour of De Lacy which may serve
to throw some light on a great and as yet unexamined genealogical
problem.

I cannot suppose that Philip de Belmeis long survived his grant
to the Arroasian Canons of Dorchester.

Of Philip de Belmeis the younger I have only one notice as his
Father's Successor. Calling himself Philip, Son of Philip de
Beumes, and addressing Walter, Bishop of Coventry (who sat from
Oct. 1149 to Dec. 1159), he confirms to "the Canons Regular of
St. Mary of Lilleshill, of the Order of Arroasia, all the land which
lies between Watlingestret and Merdische, and also the Church of
Aessibi with that of Blackfordbye." 80

Philip de Belmeis junior, who was living at the time of Henry IPs

"° Dodsworth, vol. ex, fo. 48, b. I am
favoured by T. Rossell Potter, Esq., with
another transcript of this deed, inducting
the Testing Clause, which is very impor-
tant. The names given are Richard
Bishop of London (consecrated 28 Sept.
1152), Richard Archdeacon of London
(omitted in Le Neve's List), Hugo a Lon-
don, Radulf de Belmeys " my Brother,"
Peter Fitz William, Roger de Arundel,
Richard de Belmeys, William de Costen-
teine "my Knights," and Roger "my
Clerk," and Robert Fits William, William
de Pontefraoto, Robert de Belmeys, Wil-
liam his Brother, Peter " Candarius (Qy.
Gamerarius) mens," Maurice Pinoerna,
Robert Camerarius, and other Servants
of the Bishop of London. —

The deed therefore passed between 1162
and 1159. Another transcript by Dods-
worth (vol. 141, fo. 49, b.) gives Hugh
Archdeacon of London, and Philip Fitz
William, as second and fourth witnesses.

Dodsworth appends to this deed his idea
of the descent of Belmeis and La Zouche.
The scheme is however inconsistent with
the very evidence on which Dodsworth
founds it. A Trial about the Manor of
Betton, which is recorded on the Rolls of
Hilary Term, 1226, gives William de
Belmeis as the Brother and next heir of
Philip Junior, and omits all mention of
Ranulph. This is a mere mistake of the
Law-Clerk. At a previous stage of the
same suit, daring the County Assizes of
1221, the descent was declared to have
been as stated in the text; and much
secondary evidence confirms the better
authority of the Provincial Record.

The annexed Pedigree of Belmeis and
La Zouche is, I believe, accurate in all
points which it distinctly asserts. The
doubts which are inseparable from such
an investigation I have indicated by waved
lines, or such other marks as seemed
suitable for the purpose.

TONG. 207

accession (1154), was succeeded by his Brother Ranulph, of whom
I have the following notices.

In a donum of the Knights of Nottinghamshire, recorded
Michaelmas 1159, Radulf de Bealmes' proportion (two merks) is
pardoned by writ of the King. 81

A Certificate remains on the Salop Chartulary, whereby Ranulph
de Belmeis, addressing all his heirs, kindred, friends, and vassals,
tells them that he came before the full County of Salop and there
acknowledged that he wrongfully held Betton, which belonged to
the Monks of Shrewsbury, and which his Ancestors had unjustly
held. He restored it, and was thereupon received into the Society
of the said Monks. Of this were witnesses the Barons and Knights
of the whole County. 83

In the Liber Niger (1 165-6), his return as a Tenant in capite is
not preserved. His Tenure at Meadowley, indicated in that
Record, has been already noticed. But a Tenure of three Knights'
Fees held by him under the Baron Stafford at that period, is fully
stated and requires particular notice. These fees were apparently
of old feoffment, that is, had been bestowed on Ranulfs ancestors
before the death of Henry I. His Under-Tenant in two thereof
was John Bigod (Bagod) and in the third, Hervey de Wilbrichtone. 88

Ranulph de Belmeis therefore may be taken to have been Mesne-
Lord of Blymhill, Brinton, and Wilbrighton, all in the County
of Stafford. His Tenure in Sussex at the same period has before
been noticed, viz. as standing in the Record under the name of
his Father.

At this period Ranulph de Belmeis seems to have been employed
by Henry II in Wales. The Castles of Rhuddlan and Basingwerk
had remained in the King's hands since 1157, when they were
garrisoned by him as a result of his first Welsh campaign. At
Michaelmas 1166 the Sheriffs of Warwickshire and Leicestershire
had paid £10. by the King's order to Randulphde Belmes for
garrison (munieionem) of the Castles of Basingwer, Roelend and
Frestinton (Frestatton).

At Michaelmas 1 167, Tong and Tong-Norton (entered as "Tonge
et Norton Randulfi") had been amerced one merk by Alan de Nevill
for some offence against the Forest-Laws.

At the same period, Ranulph de Belmeis was deceased, for the
Sheriff of Shropshire accounts to the Crown, for a sum of

81 Rot. Pip. 5 Hen. II. I » £#«. Niger, i, 136.

38 Salop Chartulary, No. 294. i

208

•8

'ill?

,8 9 .06

3431(3.38

Ih
1

«T3

H.C?

ills

9 8£*

os — ;

=» m ®

•IP

gf£«g

PQ o

I**

«^wi*«»w^»» i»im

a.®

:= E

u~*.

0«M

bWhipo2
II

%8 ,2 o o « di

209

«s"l «

•gfc *

<8 op

- 3~

210

TONG.

£3. 10*. 6d. « of the ferm of Twanga, the land of Randulf de
Belmeis." 84

Thus terminated the elder male line of De Belmeis, for Ranulf
died without issue, and his heir was his Sister Alice.

She, whether single at the time or a Widow, is recorded under
the name af Alice de Beaumeys as having granted the Mill of Tong
to Lilleshall Abbey. 86 I do not find this gift to have had any sub-
sequent confirmation, nor can I think that it was operative.

I proceed now to speak of the Husband and the descendants of
this Heiress. —

Alan la Zouche, son of Geoffrey Vicomte of Rohan in Brittany,
was doubtless descended from the reigning Earls or Dukes of that
province. 86 The particular line of such descent I will not here
attempt to determine. Its general probability arises from three
considerations, viz. that those Earls had had various interests in
England ever since the Conquest, that others of their descendants
were surnamed La Zouche, and that Swavesey (Cambridgeshire),
which had originally been given to one of these Earls, subsequently
belonged to Zouche of Ashby.

It was in the Spring of 1166 that Henry II, by an able negotia-

M Sot Pip. 12 & 13 Hen. II.

* Patent, 18 Eic. II, p. 1, memb. 7.

* Dugdaie (Baronage, i, p. 688), pre-
facing his account of Zouche of Ashby,
says as follows : —

" That this Ancient and Noble Family
is branched from the Earls of Britanny,
all oar Genealogists do agree; though
they do not deduce the Line of that
Descent in each Point alike. To the
intent therefore that it may the more
clearly appear how it is, I have thought
fit to take notice, That William la Zusche
in that confirmation to the Monks of
Swavesey in Cambridgeshire, of the grants
made by his Ancestors unto the Abbey of
8. Begius and Bacus in Anjow (whereunto
this Priory of Swavesey was a Cell) calleth
Roger la Zusche his Father, and Alan
la Zusche Earl of Britanny (Son of
Geffrey) his Grandfather. —
Which William died in 1 John."
The parenthetical "Son of Geffrey"
seems to have been adopted by Dugdaie
on the authority of Glover (Somerset
Herald). It serves but to increase con-

fusion. — The only JEarl Alan of Bretagne
whose Father's name was Geoffrey was
Guardian of William I, when Duke of
Normandy, and died by poison in 1040 j
whereas Alan, first Lord Zouche of Ashby,
was living in. 1186, and is not said on
good authority to have been son of any
Earl .Geoffrey, but of Geoffrey Vicomte
of Rohan. Moreover this Alan la Zouche
of Ashby was succeeded by his son Wil-
liam, William by his Brother Roger, and
Roger by his son 41an, — a descent not
strictly identical with anything implied by
the Swavesey Charter.

That document, if it proves anything
(and is accurate as well as genuine),
proves that other descendants of the
Earls of Britanny, besides Zouche of
Ashby, were called La Zouche and had
a claim upon Swavesey.

Further to explain the Swavesey Char-
ters (Monatticon, vii, 1001) I am unqua-
lified. The attempt would involve a dis-
sertation on the descent of the Earls of
Bretagne, a problem of sufficient interest
and difficulty to fill a volume.

TONG.

211

tion annexed the substantive sovereignty of Bretagne to his foreign
dominions. Conan Le Petit, the reigning Earl, gave his daughter
Constance to Geoffrey, third son of the English King, a boy then
in his eighth year, and ceded his power to Henry, as Guardian of
the infant couple. Henry, after receiving the homage of the
Bretons at Thouars (in Poitou), passed on to Rhedon and Dol,
principal Cities of the newly acquired Province, to settle the details
of his future government.

As a natural sequence of these transactions I reckon the promo-
tion of Alan la Zouche in England. —

It was clearly the policy of our early Bangs to contrive that the
most influential of their foreign Vassals should have possessions on
this side the Channel. The allegiance thus secured was based on
the most available though not the noblest of human motives, —
self-interest.

Thus, I conceive, did Henry II deal with Alan, Son of Geoffrey
Vicomte of Rohan.

In 1172, 1 find Alan La Zuche assessed at and paying 20s. for
the Scutage of Ireland, in respect of one Knight's Fee which he
held in capite in Northamptonshire. 87

Two law-suits which concerned lands in that County, and in
which he was Defendant, are mentioned on the latter Pipe-Rolls of
Henry II. One of these seems to have involved a great interest,
and to have originated about 1177 ; the other which concerned land
of £5. annual value commenced about 1186.

This Alan la Zouche describing himself as Son of Geoffrey the
Vicomte, and for the health of himself, his wife Alice, and their
children (puerorum), and for the souls of Philip de Beumeis senior,
Philip junior, and his (Philip senior's) other Sons, confirmed and
increased the grants above cited to LiUeshall Abbey. His Charter
specifies the Church of Essebi ; the Chapel of Blackfordeby with
sixty acres in the latter and three virgates in the former vill ; a
fourth virgate outside the vill (of Ashby) which was William
Forester's ; the land of Haco Sutor ; all the land of Suarteclyve
between the road from Pakynton to Brcdon and the boundaries
through the wood ; the land of Overton ; tithe of his mills ; the
land of Liifeard ; and accommodation in his wood of Tong Castle. 88

87 IAber Ruber, fo.xlixj M adorn Exche-
quer, page 408, p.

* Monawiicon^ vi, 268, No. v. I am
finoured by T. Howell Potter, Esq., with

a transcript of this deed, which gives
the witnesses. Another transcript is in
Dodsworth, vol. cxli, fo. 49.
The witnesses seem to hare been Boger

212

TONG.

This Alan and Alicia left three Sons, William, Roger and
Philip. I cannot determine the exact period when William, the
eldest, succeeded. His confirmation to Lilleshall Abbey is well
worth notice. Therein he styles himself " William de Belmeys son
of Alan la Zouch." He also makes iieution of "Adelhiza de
Belmeys his Mother" and of " Philip de Belmeys Senior, Philip
Junior and Ranulph Brother of Philip Junior" as his (William's)
Antecessors.* 9 The Charter is in other respects a repetition of the
grants already specified.

Another notice which I have of this William is in connexion
with Tong ; viz. how, conceiving the Advowson of the Church to
belong to him, he forcibly ejected a Clerk who had been admitted
thereto by Hugh Bishop of Coventry (and therefore between 1188
and 1194), on presentation of Salop Abbey.

William la Zouche was deceased before June 1199, and without
issue ; for then did Roger his Brother fine £100. for his lands.
The Sheriffs of Devonshire, Sussex and Shropshire were ordered
each to take security for a third of this debt. 40 But, at Michaelmas
1201, the Sheriff of Devon had received the final instalment of
£40.

At the Salop Assizes of 1203, Soger la Zuche essoigned his
attendance, his excuse being that he had gone beyond sea before
the general summons had issued. —

Herewith are connected some matters of contemporary History. —
King John is said to have assassinated Arthur Earl of Brittany, the
son of Geoffrey and Constance before mentioned, on Thursday

de Mortimer, Aloher, Richard de London,
William Cardiffe, Boger Clerk, Elias
Codrell, Robert de Sudenhall (Sydnall),
Dame Adheliia de Behnes, William de
Belmes her Son, Philip de Belmes his
Brother, and Robert de Horseley.

I suppose the deed to have passed
between 1185 and 1190.

* Transcript communicated by T. Bos-
sell Potter, Esq.—

The witnesses are Philip de Belmeys
(probably William's Brother), Geoffrey
de Blie, Ivo Brito de Seun, Roger Clerk,
Roger de Flamville, Master Robert de
WiUesburgh, Robert Chaplain, Thomas
and Ranulph Priests, Henry Parson of
Hartishorn, Ralph his Brother, Simon

Nephew of Abbot William, Radulf Cau-
drell, Hugh Trullemag.

This deed had a Seal two inches wide,
exhibiting the figure of a Knight on
horseback brandishing a Sword. The
shield on his left arm was charged with a
Fosse, and circumscribed thus, —

SlGIL* WlLLISLXI DB BBLXBS HLXT8
(SIC) AldLRI LA ZVOH.

That this William commonly went by
his maternal name is further shown by
an acquittance of the Scvtage far King
Richard's Redemption, which, in 1195,
the Sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicester-
shire enters, by order of the King, against
the name of William de Belmes (Madox
Exchequer, p. 411, t.).

40 Oblata, page 4.

TONO. 213

April 3, 1203* The King was certainly at Rouen on that and
three following days (Good Friday and Easter Sunday were two of
them), and Arthur was never seen afterwards. When this crime
was rumoured in Brittany, the Bretons determined to avenge it.
They joined with Philip Augustus in that united attack on John's
territory which ended in the loss of Normandy. Roger la Zouche
was. a Breton by descent, as we have 6een already. We now see why
the Lord of Tong was not in attendance on the King's Justices
when summoned to Salop in October 1203.

Roger la Zouche's foreign sympathies involved the forfeiture of all
his English possessions; —

On June 14, 1204, King John's precept issued to the Sheriff of
Shropshire, commanding him to give William de Braose full seizin
of such lands in his Bailiwick as had been Roger La Zouche's and
which were of the Fee of said William. 41 It is quite clear that
under this writ William de Braose, then a great favourite of King
John, became seized of Tong, but how Zouche had held it under
him or how he (Braose) had any previous interest there I have
never seen the slightest evidence. —

Later hints however are not wanting to show that Tong was
reputed to be held of the Honour of Brecknock and of the Barony
of Braose.

But to continue— on August 15, 1204, the King's Bailiff in Sussex
had orders to give up to William Briwere all Roger la Zouche's lands
in that quarter, which lands were of the Honour of Petworth.**

In the 6th of John (1204), a valuation was taken of the " Lands
of the Normans," that is, of the English possessions of such Vassals
of the King as had adhered to Philip Augustus. Roger la Zouche's
lands appear more than once on this Record. His Manor of North-
molton in Devonshire was worth £12. per annum, without the stock
thereon ; Brictelegh a member of Northmolton was worth 40s. It
belonged to William Fitz Warm, a Feoffee and Partizan of Roger
la Zouche. —

Esseby La Zuche in Leicestershire, the land of Roger la Zuche
was estimated, if stocked, to yield £10. per annum. John Le Strange
had removed part of the Stock therefrom. 43

41 Mot. Clmu. i, p. L I have before
alluded to the memo interest which
Braose seems to hare had in Tong and
Donington. It perhaps explains why
Behneis and La Zouche were not usually

assessed to Sov&age* in Shropshire, as
Tenants in capite.

41 Ibidem, p. 6, b.

*> Sot. Normanmm (by T. DufEus
Hardy, Esq.), pp. 180, 169.

II. 28

214

TONG.

These valuations can scarcely have been completed when Roger
la Zouche returned to the allegiance of his English Suzerain, paying
a hundred merks for seizin of his lands and all issues thereof which
had not been converted to the King's use. Geoffrey Fitz Piers, the
great Justiciar, stood surety for this Fine. 44

But on the 25th of April 1205, the debt was excused, Roger
la Zouche undertaking to serve the King a year in Poitou with
another Knight. 46

On May 1, 1205, the King had lent Roger la Zoilche fifty marks,
for repayment of which William Fitz Warin appears to be liable. 46

Roger la Zouche accompanied King John in his Irish expedition
of 1210. On the 28th of June, being at Dublin, 40*. is lent to him
by the King's Treasurer. 47

About this time the following, not very consistent, returns were
made as to Roger la Zouche's tenure of Tong. —

A list of Tenures, apparently taken in 1211, says that " Roger de
Tusche holds in capite of the King and is bound to the service of
finding two serving men in the King's Army in Wales/' 48 —

Two nearly contemporary Rolls give a similar account of " Roger
de la Zuche's" Shropshire Tenure ; 49 but a Roll, apparently of 1212,
says that "Roger la Zuche holds the Manor of Thonk which
was of the Fee of William de Braose by service of half-a-Knighf s-
Fee." 60

At this period the forfeiture and miserable fate of William de
Braose had been consummated. He died an Exile and, if we may
believe the Chroniclers, his Wife and Son were starved to death in
the Dungeons of Windsor Castle.

Roger la Zouche on the other hand continued to advance in the
favour of John. In February 1214, he accompanied the King into
Poitou, and on May 26 had the usual Letters of Scutage in regard
of his personal service. 61

44 Sot. Fin. p. 221.

*» Clous . i, 28. The <KM0ro» of Roger
la Zouche is expressly said to have taken
place " whilst he was in Brittany."

46 Clous, i, 80 ; Sot. Fin. p. 266.

47 Sot. de Prastitis, p. 182.

48 Testa de Nevitt, fo. 254.

49 Ibidem, fo. 880, and Liber Ruber,
fo. exxiij.

10 Testa de NevM, fo. 256. A fifth
Boll {Liber Ruber, fo. cxxxyii) omits all

mention of Soger la Zouche among the
Shropshire Tenants in capites but it ex-
hibits the name of "Philip de Doniton"
without any statement as to service, I
cannot help thinking that this indefinite,
and probably inaccurate entry, was in
allusion to Roger la Zouche's tenure of
Tong and Donington, and that the officer
who made the return was uninformed of
the true particulars.
N Clous, i, pp. 166, 200.

TONG. 215

On Oct. 14, 1215, he had a grant of the Manors of Peterfield
and Mapledurham (Co. Hants) which Geoffrey de Mandeville had
forfeited to the Crown. 68

On Nov. 18 following, he had a grant, during the King's pleasure,
of Samihest (Southants) and Kidderminster (Worcestershire), lands
which had been Henry Biset's. 68

On April 25, 1216, the Sheriff of Gloucestershire is ordered to
give him Fairford, a Manor which belonged to the Honour of
Gloucester. 64

Faithful to King John in every later extremity, he appears in his
Retinue at Corf on June 11, 1216; and on that King's death
shortly afterwards was no less faithful to his Son, King Henry III.

On the 15th March 1217, still retaining the Lordships of
Mapledurham and Peterfield, he is ordered to allow her dower in
the same to Milisent, widow of the Earl of Evreux and then wife of
WiUiam de Cantilupe junior, 66

On the 4th of April and 10th and 11th of May 121 7, various
Precepts issued to the Earl of Salisbury, to Hugh de Yivon, to the
Sheriffs of Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, and to Peter de Maulay,
to give Roger la Zouche seizin of all such lands in his Fee as were
tenanted by the King's enemies. 66

I should here take notice that the Yicomtes of Rohan, who
seem to have constituted an elder branch of the house, from
which Roger la Zouche sprung, were at one time seized of con-
siderable estates in England. Alan, who appears to have been
the last Vicomte thus seized, occurs in 1201, as Grantee of King
John in the Manor of Costesei. 67 The fact of this Alan's forfeiture
of all his English estates is certain, though I am unable to ascer-
tain its exact time and cause. —

Probably it resulted in the usual way, viz. that, during the
reign of John, every man possessed of lands on both sides of the
Channel was constrained to elect between two allegiances. His
decision once made, all that he held under the Suzerain of his
choice was confirmed and perhaps augmented, whilst he suffered a
correspondent forfeiture in the other quarter.

Thus while Alan Vicomte of Rohan adhered to his French
allegiance and forfeited his English Fief, so did his kinsman,

■ Ibidem, p. 231.
» Ibidem, p. 237.
" Ibidem, p. 266.
" Claw, i, p. 300, b.

« Ibidem, p. 304, 308.
V Sot. Cane. 3 John, p. 340, Norfolk
and Suffolk.

216 TONG.

Roger la Zouche adopt a contrary policy. And it farther appears
that King Henry III compensated Roger la Zouche for his losses
in Brittany, not only by increasing his estates in England generally,
but by granting him some of those very lands which Alan Vicomte
of Rohan had lost. —

For instance, on July 22, 1218, the Sheriff of Norfolk and
Suffolk is ordered to give him lands in Costesey which had belonged
to the "Vicomte of Roain;" and on Jan. 10, 1219, the same
Sheriff is to give him Huningeham and Eaton, which the same
Vicomte had once held, " unless those Manors were parcel of the
Honour of Eye." w

Meanwhile, that is on July • 28, 1218, Roger la Zouche had
license to hold an annual fair at his Devonshire Manor of
Northmolton ; and on January 22, 1219, the Sheriff of Devonshire
is ordered to give up to him for his maintenance, and during
the King's pleasure, lands in Blaketorinton and Nymed, which had
once been Joel de Maine's. This grant is expressed to be in
recompense of lands which Roger "had lost in Brittany, in the
King's service/' w

On May 1, 1219, he has a grant of Fair and Market at
Blactorinton ; and on July 9, the Sheriff of Norfolk is to give him
certain lands in Bamburc, to hold during the King's pleasure,
which lands had once belonged to the Vicomte of Roain, but had
since been held of the " King's Bailiwick," by William de Man-
deville, Earl of Essex. 60

In July 1220, he appears in account with the Crown as one
of the Executors of Enjuger de Bohun ; n and on August 6 of
that year, has Royal License to go on a Pilgrimage to St James'
(of Compostella). 6 *

At the Salop Assizes of November 1221, Roger la Zouche
appears in various relations. His suit with the Abbey of Shrews-
bury for the Manor of Betton came on for hearing. The details
of this cause belong to another portion of our History, but it
happened that Roger la Zouche offered a statement of his descent,
which is much to our present purpose as proving a great deal
of what has been asserted above, merely on the evidence of
Charters. —

On this occasion Roger la Zouche claimed to be heir of Philip

» Clout, i, pp. 366, 885.
m Ibidem, pp. 866, 886.
• Ibidem, pp. 891, 428.

61 Ibidem, p. 424.

• EoU Pat. 4 Hen. IEL

TONG.

217

de Beaumes whom he described as his Uncle (avu&culum). He
of conree alluded to Philip de Beaumes junior. He traced his
heirship as follows. — The Successor to Philip's rights was Ranulph,
Philip's Brother : to Ranulph succeeded Alice, Ranulph's Sister,
because Ranulph died without issue; to Alice succeeded William
her Son; and to William, his Brother Roger, the present
Litigant. 63 All that need here be further said of this matter is
that Roger la Zouche's Pedigree passed unquestioned, and, though
the Suit continued for years, the undecided issue was not as to
his heirship, but as to the original seisin of Philip de Behneis.

At the same Assizes, Roger la Zouche sued the Abbot of
Shrewsbury for the Advowson of Tong, and without success.
The particulars shall be given, when we come to speak of the
Church.

His resistance of Thomas de Chabbenore's claim on his estate
shall also be noticed among the various contingents of his Shrop-
shire Fief, which we shall hereafter have to give account of. His
quarrels with Buildwas Abbey should however be here particu-
larized, inasmuch as they probably resulted in a composition, and
in a Charter of Roger la Zouche to Buildwas, whose date it is much
to our purpose to establish.

At these Assizes then, the Abbot of Buildwas was found to have
" erected a fence to the injury of Roger la Shuch's tenement in
Tong." The fence was to be taken down, but the Abbot was
excused any amercement by writ of the King. 64 —

The Abbot of Buildwas further appoints Brother Walter de
Bolingehal, a Monk, his Attorney in several suits, one of which
was a suit of novel disseizin between the said Abbot on the one
hand, and Roger la Shuche and William de Vigeford (Hugeford) on
the other. I cannot determine whether this was the same suit of
novel disseizin which William de Hugeford had against the Abbot
about a right of common pasture in Ideshal and which he with-
drew. 65

Soon after these transactions, as I imagine, " Roger, son of Alan
la Szouche," granted a full Charter of confirmation to Buildwas.

• Salop Astigw, 6 Hen. Ill, memb.
6.

■* Ibidem, memb* 6 dorso.

* Ibidem, memb. 1 and 6 dono. This
right of common pasture probably arose
from some interest of William de Hugford
at Upton.—

Upton was then held by the Lords of
Tong, perhaps under the Lords of IdsalL
It adjoined lands of Buildwas Abbey,
both at Buckley and Hatton. Hugford's
Sureties in this litigation were Reginald
and Robert de Upton, and Hugh de
Beckbury.

218 TONG.

He specifies the land of Selfer de Rockle, easements and pannage in
his wood of Brewode ; in Buckley, dead wood for burning ; common-
pasture inTong; also that they may make their bridges on each side
of their Orange of Boclei, viz. one towards Hupton, and one towards
Doninton, in the places where they used to be, and that they shall
have his (the Grantor's) Banks (i. e. the abutments at the ends of
these bridges) and free egress and regress through his land, to and
from the said bridges. 66

It will be observed that this Charter is not only a confirmation of
the Grant of Philip de Belmeis senior, before recited, but it implies
some cognizance of the grant which had been made by Bichard de
Belmeis, as set forth under Donington. Roger la Zouche therefore
was confirming not only his Ancestor's grant, but the grant of his
Ancestor's Feoffee. Consequently this Deed implies his continued
Seigneury over Donington, whose Lord is in fact the fifth witness.

I should here notice that in May 1224, William de Serland and
Nicholas de Molis were intrusted respectively with the Cambridge-
shire Manors of Fulburn and Suavesey, which, having once belonged
to the Vicomte of Rohan, had since been committed to William
de Breant during the King's pleasure.

In October following, the privileges which had been enjoyed by
" Allan de Roien," what time he was Lord of Fulburn, were ordered
to be renewed to William de Serland. 67 — We shall presently recur
to this subject.

In November 1229, Margery Bagot was suing Roger la Zouche
under writ of novel disseizin for her free tenement in Blymhill. 68
La Zouche doubtless retained at this period the same mesne interest
in Blymhill which we have already ascertained to have belonged to
his predecessor, Ranulph de Belmeis.

08 This Charter is in possession of
George Pritchard, Esq., of Broseley. — The
witnesses' names are Walter de Hugeford,
Henry de Hugeford, Gerard Fitz Toret,
Engeram Chavel, Walter de Beaumeis,
Philip de Beaumeis, Thomas son of
Beiner de Le, Thomas Clerk of Maumes-
bury, Master Bichard of Ideshale, Nicholas
his Son, and many others. —

The Seal, of white wax, exhibits a shield
of arms, charged with a Fesse between six
* * • . The following Letters of the
Legend remain :—

Sick * * * Rogebi la Svch.

I should here say a word about the

armorial bearings proper to La Zouche,
as distinct from those which the family
afterwards adopted as inheriting from the
Houses of De Quinci or De Belmeis. The
seal of William La Zouche, elder Brother
of this Roger, exhibits a Fesse as the bear-
ing on his shield (supra, p. 212, note 39).
Alan la Zouche son of this Roger, and
husband of Elen de Quinci, sealed a grant
to Mayden Bradley (Wilts), with Gules,
a fesse between six pears or. (Nicholas
Leicestershire, iii, 568).

" Clous, i, pp. 599, 624.

• Patent, 14 Hen. Ill, dorso.

TONG.

219

On April 20, 1230, Roger la Zouche has the King's Letters-
Patent of Protection, dated at Portsmouth, " so long as he should
be with the King in foreign parts/ 1 69

u In 14 Henry 3," says Dugdale, " Roger la Zouche had a con-
firmation from the King, of the Manor of Swavesheye and of all
his lands in Fulburne, in Com. Cantabr. which he possessed by the
gift of Alan Vicomte of Roan, in exchange for all those lands
which he, the said Roger, then possessed in Brittany." 70

This requires further illustration. — Roger la Zouche was at this
time Sheriff of Devonshire, and high in the King's confidence.
Henry himself was warring in France, if his first puny effort to
recover his continental dominions can so be described. —

The contest was one of diplomacy rather than strategy, and
Henry's success seems mainly to have consisted in receiving the
homage and allegiance of the Earl of Bretagne and of Alan
Vicomte of Rohan. His concessions to both were enormous.
Those to the Earl or Duke are not to our purpose; but on the
12th of October, being then at St. Pabus, the King granted his
Letters-Patent to Alan Vicomte of Rohan, promising that, if ever
there should be variance between him (the King) and the Earl of
Bretagne, the said Alan should not thereby lose his lands in
England as long as he and his heirs discharged their services due
thereon. Moreover the King granted to the said Alan an annuity
of 200 merks, — to date from Michaelmas 1280, and to be paid to
him and his heirs, till the King should assign them lands in England
of equal value. 71

It does not appear that any of the old possessions of the
Vicomtes of Rohan were restored under this contract. Certainly
Roger la Zouche transmitted Swavesey to his own descendants.

I have thus far traced the evidences of this family of La Zouche
in parts of the Kingdom distant from the County with which I am
immediately concerned. —

In so doing I have at least been able to correct some previous
error as to the origin and relations of a great Baronial House. I
doubt not that a still wider search among foreign documents might
ascertain the precise affinity which existed between these English
Zouches, the Earls of Brittany, and the Vicomtes of Rohan.

Returning now to Shropshire, we find " Roger la Zuche" assessed

71 Pat. X4t Henry m, page 1, numb.

* Patent, Ibidem,

70 Baronage i, 688, quoting Pat.
14 Hen. IH, p. 1, memb. 2.

220

TONG.

in 1286 to the Aid far marriage of the King's Sister. His " Honour
of Tange/' constituted a Knight's Fee and so was rated at two
merks. 78

Dudgale has thought fit to notice, in his Baronage, the curious
Deed of Feoffment which this Roger la Zouche granted to Henry
de Hugford in Tong-Norton and Shaw. 78 I can add little to
Dugdale's ample notice of the particulars of this Deed, except to
say that Henry de Hugford was also a Tenant under La Zouche at
Upton, and that this Deed passed during the last ten years of Roger
la Zouche' 8 life.

This Roger la Zouche must have lived to a great age, but I find
no better evidence of the exact period of his death than is supplied
by a license bearing date November 3> 1238, whereby the King
allows Alan la Zouche, his Son and Heir, to pay his Father's debts
to the Crown as he (Roger) had done, viz. by instalments of forty-
five merks yearly. 74

The public career of Alan la Zouche was distinguished by steady
loyalty, much capacity, and a proportionate advancement of his
house in riches and honour. This great Jurist married Helen or
Ela, daughter and co-heir of Roger de Quinci Earl of Winchester,
in whose estates, involving a share of the older Earldom of Leicester,
Zouche of Ashby was thenceforth a Co-parcner.

But leaving to the more honourable pages of National or Baronial
History the great events in which Alan la Zouche took part, I con-
fine myself to his very brief connexion with Tong. —

On December 7, 1240, a Fine was levied at Lichfield between
Nicholas Abbot of Build was, plaintiff (querentem), and Alan la
Zuche, defendant (impedientem), of two carucates in Rocleg, whereof
was plea of warranty of Charter. Alan acknowledged the Abbot's

" TeHa de Nevill> fo. 877. Boger
La Zouche* s personal payment of this Aid
was an exception to the general role. It
only perplexes us as to the exact nature of
his Tenure, ria. how far it was a Tenure
mi cajnte and how for a Tenure under the
Honour of Brecknock.

7* 2tar0fM&e,voLi,p.689. A transcript
of this deed is preserved among the Cotton
Charters (ii, 8) at the British Museum.
— The Witnesses are, Sir Walter de
Huggeford, Sir Walter de Beaumyes, Sir
Xtangme Plam*c*~folie t John de Beck-
bury,Hugh deBolingale,UnfreydeUnfras-

ton (Humphrey de Humphreston) and
others.—

The third witnesses name I give as I
am able to read it, but doubt whether its
original form is thus retained. It is John
de Beckbury's name, which, in conjunction
with the era of the Grantor, gives the date
assigned in the text. —

Besides Norton and the Shaw, and the
particulars given by Dugdate, the deed
mentions these localities, via. Scherley v
the Brand, Luttleford, Le Fas, and
Trenswall.

» Rot. Fin, i, 315.

TONG. 221

right thereto as the gift of Philip de Beaumey's, Alan's relation
(consanguinei), whose heir Alan is. — To hold, &c. to the Abbot
and his Successors, &c. —

Also Alan conceded common-pasture for all the Abbot's stock at
Rocleg Orange through the whole Manor of Tonge, except in his
(Alan's) Park of Tonge, which is called Holy (Holly), and in the
wood which is called Rocleg, and that they (the Monks) may have
one swine-stall (porcariam) in Alan's wood of Brewde, and eight
cart-loads of fuel yearly. For this the Abbot received Alan and
his heirs to all benefits and prayers which should thereafter be made
in his Church of Build was for ever. 76

On July 1, 1247, another fine was levied at Westminster between
the same plaintiff and Alan la Zuche, deforciant (by his Attorney
Walter Fitz Warin) , of two carucates in Eochley, whereof was plea of
fine-levied. Alan acknowledged the Abbot's right to said land, with
the site and approach of Rochley Orange and whatever was con-
tained between said land and the water of Wrgh (Worf) down to
Rochley wood, without any right of common therein belonging to
Alan or his heirs, — all of the gift of Philip de Belmeis (as before) .

And besides this, Alan conceded that the Abbot might take old
stumps (sucum boscum for zucum bosicum) in Rochley wood.
Also he gave to the Abbot all the Tenement which he had in Upton
on the day of this fine, in pure almoigne, but reserving foreign
services due thereon. And Alan would warrant and defend the
same against the Chief Lords from all services, suits of Court at
Ideshall, &c. for ever. A provision follows in case of the Abbot's
animals straying into Tonge Manor ; and the Abbot's free right of
road between Rochley and the bridge towards Doneton is assured. —

For all this the Abbot renounced his right of common-pasture in
Thonge Manor and Brewude Wood, also his swine-stall in the
latter; also his right in a virgate of land which he and his Convent
had by grant of the Black Nuns of Brewude. But he reserved a
certain site for a mill at Tylemoneslode, with water course, stank,
right of road, &c. Lastly, he renounced all his right to common-
pasture of Lusyard, towards the Orange of the Abbot of Lilleshull
there, for ever. 76

About the year 1250, as I suppose, Alan la Zouche seems to have

7 * Pedes ISniutn, 24 Hen. Ill, Salop.

'• Ibidem, 31 Hen. Ill, Salop. Tyle-
moneslode (t. e. Tyleraon's-Ford) is still
to be identified. The Bridge and part of

the road which connect the North Western
boundary of Tong-Manor with Shiflhal
are still known as Tiuilet-Bridge and
Timlet-Holloway.

if. 29

222 TONG.

given this Manor with his Sister Alice, in frank Marriage, to William
son of Richard de Harcourt.

William de Harcourt was, as I take it, first Cousin to Alan la
Zouche's wife, his Mother being of the house of Quinci and his
Father a principal Feoffee in that Honour.

William de Harcourt, thus seized of Tong, appears in January
1256, as subject to a very extraordinary prosecution by the Abbot
of Lilleshall. 77 He was summoned to give account as to "where-
fore he had made such sales and wastes in the wood of Tong as that
the Abbot could not get therein reasonable Estovers for his Grange
of Lesyard." The Abbot complained that whereas he and his Pre-
decessors from the first foundation of Lilleshall Abbey had been in
continual seizin of such right of Estovers, now the said William had
wasted the wood, for he had given away 3000 oak-trees, had sold 3000
more, and had assarted 300 acres of the wood-land. The Abbot
laid his damages thereby at forty merks.-

William de Harcourt replied, denying all violence and injury,
and asserting that the writ under which the Abbot sued him was of
a novel and unheard-of nature, and that the Abbot could not be
deprived of estovers, for that the wood in question extended to five
leagues, and that the Abbot's Grange aforesaid did not contain
more than one or two hearths (astra) .—

The Abbot rejoined, that though Harcourt did not deprive him of
Estovers, he had already destroyed that part of the wood which was
nearest to Lizard Grange, and was about to destroy it all. —

The parties were ordered to attend at Westminster and hear
sentence in the suit, on the Quinzaine of Easter.

The loss of many Plea-Rolls prevents my tracing the successive
adjournments of this suit, but in Easter Term 1260, it was still
unsettled, and the Sheriff had been ordered to distrain William de
Harcourt to appear at Westminster and hear judgment. He
appears accordingly and requests that the Record of what had passed
at Salop be read over in Court. This being done, William expresses
his willingness to let the Abbot have what is sufficient, and avers
that enough of wood remains for that purpose. The Abbot replies,
that he cannot have estovers so conveniently as he claims, and
appeals to a Jury of the district. The Sheriff is ordered to
summon such a Jury to Westminster for the Quinzaine of St. John
the Baptist ; but afterwards, it is added, the Parties agreed. 78

77 Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 I *■ PlacUa, Easter Term, 44 Hen. Ill,
dorso. I memb. 26 recto. The Abbot fined one

TONG.

223

On July 19, 1260, Giles de Erdinton is commissioned to try an
action of novel disseizin which John de Pres had brought against
William de Harcourt and others, for a tenement in Thong. 79

This Suit is doubtless connected with a Charter which John de
Pres sometime obtained from Alan la Zouche as Seignoral Lord
of Tong : and it is worth observing, that, though Harcourt has
appeared above to be seized of the Manor at least as early as 1255,
yet this deed of Alan la Zouche must have passed subsequently.
He (Alan) grants and confirms to John de Pres and his heirs tdl
lands, tenements, and liberties contained in the Charter of Sir
William de Beumys, of the feoffment of Roger le Verner, and of
Sir Roger his (Alan's) Father, and of Robert Collet, which Charter
said John has in his keeping. He also grants him in addition (de
incremento) the land which Robert de Betterton held in the Barnde,
also his (Alan's) waste near the Pole, between the wood and the
marlpit of Metheplekes, against the road which passes from Tong
towards the wood, — also all the Brodmore between his (John's)
culture and the water-course called Lutleford, — also his (Alan's)
waste between the Brodemore and the wood of Lutleford. — To hold,
&c. at a rent of 5rf. payable to the Grantor and his heirs. 80

I should now observe that Alice La Zouche, first wife of William
de Harcourt, was deceased in the beginning of the year 1256. She
left two daughters Orabel and Margery, of whom I shall speak pre-
sently. Harcourt hereupon espoused Hillaria, Sister of Henry
Lord Hastings, who, in December 1256, became the Mother of
Richard de Harcourt, the eventual heir of his Father William.

In the troubled times which ensued, William de Harcourt's
political choice will have been a matter of some perplexity. Alan
la Zouche, his first wife's Brother, was the staunchest of Royalists,

merk for " licence to accord," which, says
a Postscript on the Plea-Boll, " appears
on the Boll of Easter Term, 46 Hen. III."
This alliides to the Pipe-Boll of that year,
where among the Nova Ohlata is the fol-
lowing entry : — Abba* de LUleshaU debet
1 marcam pro Ucentia concordaruU. —
• The system of adding postscripts to
the Plea-Bolls of any particular Term is
worth notice, and explains many entries
in those Becords which otherwise would
he unintelligible. Often too we find a
blank space left for this purpose at the
foot of an unfinished Plea. In these cases

the Postscript would appear to hare been
forgotten or un-needed.

» Patent, 44 Hen. Ill, doreo.

m Cart. Cotton, ii, 9. This Charter
has been applied by Nioholls (History of
Leicestershire, iii, 731) to some localities
called "Tonge" and "The Brand" in that
County. The witnesses are, Sir William
de Hugford (who succeeded after 1255),
Hugh de Bolynghale, Hugh de Beokbury
(deceased 1263) and Humphrey de Hum-
freston. These prove not only the date
of the Deed, but that the locality concerned
was in Shropshire.

224 TONG. ,

while the disaffection of Henry de Hastings was so rank and ob-
stinate that he was one of the few who, on the promulgation of the
Dictum de Kenilworth, were excluded from its benefits.

Harcourt had chosen the losing side and had forfeited all his
estates in 1265 ; bnt his infant daughters were no sharers in his
loss. The better-chosen and more successful policy of their maternal
Uncle, Alan la Zouche, secured them a powerful intercession.

On the 22d of October 1267, the King's Letters-Patent certi-
fied that at the instance of Alan la Zuche and in aid of the mar-
riages of Orabell and Margery, daughters of William de Harecourt
and Nieces of the said Alan, the King conceded the redemption of
Tonge and Ayliston and the Soke of Stratton, lands of William de
Harcourt, according to the Dictum de Kenilworth? 1

As regards Tong this transaction only entailed upon these Sisters
that which was reasonably theirs as the only issue of their Mother.
In July 1270, Sir William de Harcourt was dead, leaving his
second wife Hillaria surviving. Later in the same year died Alan
la Zouche, and apparently without having apportioned between
his Nieces the lands which he had redeemed for them conjointly.

About this time Orabell the elder of these Ladies married
Henry son of Henry de Pembruge, whose family, if not himself,
had been distinguished among the Anti-Royalists of the preceding
period. Of that however presently. —

A story somewhat complicated in itself and rendered still more
intricate by the verbal inaccuracy of certain Law Records has now
to be dealt with.

On December 26, 1271, King Henry III, being then at Win-
chester, granted by Charter to his beloved and faithful Henry, son
of Henry de Pembrig and Orabil his wife, the following privileges,
viz. that they should have a weekly Market on Thursday in their
Manor of Tong, and an annual Fair to last for three days (the vigil,
the day and the morrow of Saint Bartholomew the Apostle) unless
such Fair should be injurious to other Fairs in the neighbourhood ;
also that they should have Free-Warren in their demesne lands at
Tong. 83

In July 1272, Henry de Penbrigg and Orabil his wife and Mar-
gery, OrabiTs Sister, gave the King a merk that an Assize might be
taken before Gilbert de Preston (a Justiciar of that period) ; and
the King's mandate issued accordingly to the Sheriff of Leicester-

« Sot Pat. 51 Hen. III. | * Mot Cart. 56 Hen. in, memb. 6.

TONG.

225

shire, 88 in which County the lands or other mattere in question,
will have lain, either wholly or in part.

The result of this Assize or process of Law seems to be contained
in a Fine, levied at Westminster on February 3, 1274, between
Margery de Harecurt, plaintiff (querentem), and Henry Penybrigg
and Qrabil his wife, Defendants, of the Manor of Ayliston and the
Advowson of the Church of the same viU, and six merks of annual
Bent in the Soke of Stratton (Leicestershire), whereof was Plea of
Convention. Henry and Orabil acknowledged the premises to be
the right of Margery, to hold of the Chief Lords of the Fee by
accustomed services; and Margery conceded to Henry and Orabil
the Manor of Tonge (Co. Salop) to hold to Henry and Orabil
and the Heirs of Orabil, of the Chief Lords of the Fee, for ever. 84

The Suit and Fine therefore constituted nothing more than a
legal and perhaps amicable partition of the estate of two Co-
parcners.

Soon after this Margery de Harecourt married John de Canti-
lupe, and within five years both she and her husband were deceased
without issue.

Moreover within the same period died Orabil, wife of Henry de
Pembruge, leaving an only son Fulk. Also Henry de Pembruge
himself died, 86 having however married a second wife Alice, by
whom he left a son Henry.

At their Father's death, in February 1279, Fulk and Henry were
both Infants, the former and elder being eight years old according
to one authority, or hardly so much if, according to another, he was
still under age in October 1292.

I must now retrace my steps, not only that I may give some
earlier account of these Pembruges with whom so many Shropshire
Families claim affinity, but that I may render more intelligible
their various interests and connexions whilst Lords of Tong.

In 1285, as I infer from various entries in the Testa de Nevill,
Henry de Pembruge was holding two Knight's-fees, less a twentieth
part of one fee, at Weston and Woneston (Gloucestershire) of the
Honour of Cormeilles. So also about eight years later is the same
Henry found holding Pembridge, in Stretford Hundred, Hereford-
shire, of the Honour of Radnor, by one Knightfs-fee. M The

• JBot. It*. 66 Hen. Ill, memb. 10.
M Pedes FSmtm (Divert. Comitat.)
8 Bdw. I, Salop and

s Originalia, i, p. 32, anno 7 Edw. L
" Testa de Nevill, folios 301, 817, 846,
849.

226

TONG.

PEDIGREE OF PEMBRUGE AND VEBNON.

Henry de Pembruge of Pembridge (Herefordshire) =7=
Occurs 1285 and 1254.

Eufemia, daughter
and Coheir of God-
frey de Gamages.

1 1

William de Henry* de Pembruge

Pembruge. Occurs 1254, 1267.

Occurs 1263. Obiit circa Jan. 1272.

Elisabeth, daughter and coheir of
Godfrey de Gamages. Occurs 1263.
8vpcr*te* October 1273.

2d wife Alice.
Superttes
1282, 1300.

=r= Henry d«

Henry de Pembruge of Tong,
&c. Ocean 1267, 1272.
Obiit Jan. 16, 1279.

: Orabel, daughter at William Godfrey de
de Harcourt. Occurs 1267. Pembruge.
Married before 1272. Occurs 1267.

Henry de Pembruge.

Fulk de Pembruge
Bom circa 1272.
Infra atatem 1292.
Obiit circa June
1296.

Isabella.
Svpento 1297.

Fulk de Pembruge =f= Matilda (de Bermingham)^2& husband, Eobert Corbet

Born Aug. 27, 1291.
Occurs April 1314.
Obiit Jan. 8, 1326.

A Widow 1326.
Bemarried before 1333.

of Hadley.
Occurs 1333, 1334.

Fulk de Pembruge = Alice ?
Born Nor. 30, 1310. Supcntet
Occurs 1333. 1334.

Obiit circa 1334 s.p.9.

Bobert de Pembruge, Knight. ^
Said to occur in 1346.

Richard de Vernon :
of Harlaston, &c.
Obiit 1877-8.

: Juliana 2d wife, Isabel
Pembruge. o&uEluabeth

Lingen.

Obiit 1446-7.

Fulk de Pembruge 1
Occurs 1377, 1882.
Obiit 1408-9 *.ps.

1st wife. Margaret

Truasell.

Occurs 1377, 1382.

Obiit June 11, 1402.

Richard de Vernon =t= Johanna Griffith.
Defunctu* 1402-3. I SeUctal40S.

S-3. T

Benedicta
de Ludlow.
Occurs
Not. 25,
1410.

Bichard de Pembruge
alias de Vernon.
Infra cstatem 1402-3.
Married in 1410.
Treasurer of Calais 1450.
Obiit 1451.

Isabel de t= William de

Vernon.

Occurs

1410.

Ludlow.

Occurs

1410.

Joan
Vernon.
Occurs
1410.

7 William de Vernon.

Vernon of Tong and Haddon.

TONG.

227

Honour of Radnor was, at this time, held by Ralph Lord Mortimer
of Wigmore, whose Vassal therefore Henry was.

In 1248, Henry de Fenbrigg had a Charter of Free- Warren at
Weston. 87

On May 10, 1254, he fined one hundred merks to have custody
of all lands, &c, which were the hereditary right of Lucia and
Eufemia, two of the daughters and coheirs of Godfrey de Gamages,
out of the lands which were said Godfrey's. He was to hold such
lands till those coheiresses came of age, and was to have their
marriages for two of his Sons. Margery de Lacy who had the
said wards in her custody was to deliver them up, so to be

On July 1, 1268, the Flea-Rolls of Westminster exhibit Henry
de Penbrug, and Elizabeth his wife, with William de Penbrug, and
Eufemia his wife, as suing Hugh de Plessetis for the Shropshire
Manor of Stottesden, which the Plaintiffs claimed as the right of
the said Elizabeth and Eufemia. The Defendant not appearing,
the Manor was ordered to be seized into the King's hand, and the
cause was adjourned. 89

Of Godfrey de Gamages and his sometime interest in Stottesden
it will be better to speak when we reach that Manor. Here- 1
would observe that Henry de Pembruge's wife Elizabeth, though
a daughter and Coheir of Godfrey de Gamages, was either a
different daughter to Lucia for whose marriage Henry de Fembruge
senior had fined in 1254, or else was described at different periods
by two distinct names.

Henry de Pembruge does not appear to have ever recovered
any interest in Stottesden, and for this or some other cause of
discontent, he became a strenuous supporter of Montfort's treason
in 1265 : — nay it was alleged that after the Battle of Evesham
(August 4), and after the Council of Winchester (in September
following), he insulted Prince Edmund at Warwick, committed
depredations, set fire to that Town, and was there taken prisoner.

He seems to have been given in charge to Roger de Mortimer,
under whom he held his Manor of Pembruge. Mortimer bestowed
his captive in the dungeons of Wigmore, with what object or
result we shall presently learn.

* Sot. Chart. 32 Hen. Ill, memb.
4. He appears to have fined 20 merks
for this privilege; but the printed
Originalia Eoll (vol. i, p. 10) describes

the Manor as "Eaton" in Herefordshire.

* Sot. lin. ii, 186.

m Placita, Trinity Term, 47 Hen. HI,
memb. 28 dorso.

228

TONO.

Of course all the estates of Henry de Pembrnge were forfeited.
Weston (Gloucestershire) was given to Walter GifFard, Archbishop
of York, Leye (Worcestershire) to Matthew de Gamages, and
Gyllock (Herefordshire) to Hugh de Mortimer.

Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, in virtue probably of a general
licence which he had to confiscate all such lands of the King's
enemies as were of his Fee, entered upon his Prisoner's Manor of
Pembridge. Foreseeing however that such occupation would
eventually be null and void, and that Henry de Pembridge, by the
King's clemency, would ultimately have that power of redemption
which was accorded to Rebels in general, by the Dictum de
Kenilworth, Mortimer strove rather to realize the escheated Manor
than to reclaim the unsteady faith of his Vassal. The Prisoner
made a formal conveyance to Mortimer of the Manor and Advow-
aon of Pembridge ; and not only that, but he wrote to his Tenants
informing them of the transfer and their consequent change of
fealty. He was further taken, or, as Mortimer afterwards asserted,
went willingly, before the full Court of the County of Hereford and
ratified the transaction.

Mortimer seems however to have felt that all these concessions,
extorted from a Prisoner, could not amount to a legal conveyance.
A further security was desirable. He therefore got to his Castle
of Wigmore the two sons of his Prisoner, Henry and Godefirid, and
leaving them there as hostages to secure his own ascendancy over
the Father, journeyed with the latter to the King's Court, then
sitting at Clarendon.

There on the Quinzaine of St. Martin in the 52d year of King
Henry (Nov. 25, 1267) appeared Henry de Pembruge senior (so
called with reference to his eldest son and because his own
Father was now deceased), and acknowledged that he remitted and
quitted to Roger de Mortimer all his right and claim in the Manor
and Advowson of Pembruge for ever. He also undertook to
give any such other security as Mortimer should devise in the
matter, whether by Fine, to be levied in the King's Court, or
otherwise. 90

From Clarendon Mortimer seems to have conducted his Prisoner

90 Flacila coram Rege y Michaelmas
Term, 51 k 52 Hen. Ill, memb. 25, where
this Quitclaim is given independently,
and without any allusion to the circum-
stances under which it was obtained.

Those circumstances, as detailed in the
text, transpired at a trial long afterwards,
when however this very Qtrit*claim was
cited in evidence.

TONG; 229

to Ernewode, one of his Shropshire Manors, but for what purpose
does not appear. Mortimer's object was gained, and Pembruge
lost for ever the estate which gave name to his House. It is
probable therefore that he was soon released, and indeed thus
much is implied by a statement which says that he took measures
in accordance with the Dictum de Kenilworth to redeem his
other estates. Three years, or four at most, remained to him for
such a purpose; for in 1270, or 1271, he died, leaving his wife
Elizabeth a widow, and that son Henry his heir, whom we have
already noticed as a Hostage at Wigraore and as Lord of Tong in
right of his wife Orabell, niece of Alan la Zouche.

This youth, the third Henrjr de Pembruge of whom we give
account, set himself strenuously to redeem the fallen fortunes of
his house.

In December 1271, his peace with the King is obviously implied
by the terms " faithful and beloved " already quoted in connection
with his name. On January 20, 1272, " Henry, son of Henry de
Pembrigg lately deceased/' had been suing the Archbishop of York,
Matthew de Oamages, and Hugh de Mortimer, that they should
allow him to redeem those, his lands, of which they were seized.
On their refusal so to do, the King had issued a mandate to
Nicholas Fitz Martin and his companions, Justices appointed to
hear and determine all such suits in Herefordshire, Glouces-
tershire, and Worcestershire, apprising the said Justices of the
Claimant's readiness to abide by the Dictum de Kenilworth, and
ordering them, if he was entitled to the benefits of that edict, to
summon the parties before them and do their duty, according to the
form of the said edict, touching Henry de Pembruge's right to
recover seizin of his estates.

It would appear that the Justices thus instructed found the case
to be beyond their jurisdiction. — Pembruge's claim to the benefits
of the Dictum were denied by the Archbishop and others. So on
the day last mentioned (Jan. 20, 1272) the parties appeared before
the King himself.

The Archbishop pleaded for all. He denied young Henry's
right to the benefit of redemption, inasmuch as the Dictum de Kenil-
worth excluded, inter alios, those who had persisted in rebellion and
rapine after the Council of Winchester (the " peace proclaimed at
Winchester " he calls it) . He then instanced the elder Pembruge's
conduct before recited.

Young Pembruge, on the other hand, urged that the Dictum de

ii. 30

230 TONG.

Kenilworth applied to all transgressions up to the time of its pro*
raulgation, except those of the Citizens of London ; that his Father
and, after his Father's death, he himself sued for redemption of their
lands in conformity with the Dictum, which Dictum, he added,
contained a special concession of the King's, viz, that no Rebel
should suffer disinheritance.

The suit or suits did not end on this occasion, but a postscript on
the Boll states that soon after the King's death, in the octaves of
Hilary (Jan. 20) the parties accorded by License, and it gives
reference to a Boll of the said term in the first year of Edward I
(1273) for particulars. 91 —

I find the Concord thus indicated. Thereby Henry de Pembruge
relinquished to the Archbishop all his right to the Manor of Weston
super Egge (Weston sub Edge) receiving in exchange 1000 merks
and the Manor of Ullingwyke (Herefordshire) which he is to hold
under the Archbishop at a penny rent, for all services. He also
remits to the Archbishop all his right in the Manor of Norton
(Gloucestershire), for a sum paid down and an annuity of £10.
chargeable on the Archbishop's Manor of Brockwode during the
life of Elizabeth, Henry's Mother . M

How Henry de Pembruge recovered his other Manors of Gillock
(Herefordshire) and Leye (Worcestershire) from Mathew de Gam-
ages and Hugh de Mortimer I have not thought it worth while to
inquire. Suffice it to say that he did regain them.

Thus far successful, he opposed himself to the gigantic influence
of Boger Mortimer of Wigmore, suing him before the Justices
Itinerant at Hereford for the lost Manor of Pembruge.

The cause was adjourned to Westminster, where it came on for
hearing before the King's Council in the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20)
1274. The pleadings are given at an unusual length but are well
worth epitomizing. —

" Henry son of Henry de Penebrigg sued Boger de Mortimer,
Matilda his wife, and Ralph his Son for the Manor, &c. (except ten
Librates of Land) of which Manor, &c. Boger and Ralph had
unjustly disseized the Plaintiff's Father, whose heir the Plain-
tiff is."—

The Record is ambiguous as to the appearance of the Defendants,
whether all or only Matilda pleaded by Attorney. Her plea was
that she claimed to hold nothing in demesne ; Ralph's was that he

91 Placita coram Rege, Hilary Term, w Abbrev. Placitorum, p. 185, b.

66 Hen. Ill, xnemb. 11 dorso.

TONO.

231

held nothing except at will of his Father. So Roger was virtually
the sole Defendant.

He took exception to the word " disseized" used in the Plaintiffs
writ, and alleged the Charter of Henry de Pembruge Senior, his
letter to his Tenants, and his voluntary quit-claim in the County-
Court as inconsistent with " disseizin" —

He produced also the documentary proofs of each transaction.

The Plaintiff replied that Mortimer had ingress in the Manor by
disseizin, not by the documents produced; for he entered on the
Manor while his (the Plaintiff's) Father was a prisoner and before
the documents were executed.

Mortimer took exception to the form of the Plaintiff's proceed-
ings and asked judgment of the Court as to whether the Plaintiff
was competent to sue under a writ " de ingressu " which involved
mention of the term t€ disseizin." 93

The Plaintiff answered, that if his Father had demised the pre-
mises while in prison, a writ " de ingressu," making mention of such
imprisonment, was a form in which he was competent to sue ; he
was however prepared to show that neither in nor out of prison had
his Father ever demised the premises. —

He repeated that Mortimer had ingress by disseizin, notwith-
standing that his Father had given him (Mortimer) a seizin by
feoffment. He appealed to the Court to say whether he was com-
petent to sue under any other form of writ than that which he had
employed.

The Court's assent to this proposition may be inferred from the
continuance of the pleadings. —

Mortimer now again alleged the quit-claim in the County Court,
his own seizin of the Manor for a long period, and finally Pem-
bruge's acknowledgment in the Curia Regis. To the Rolls of Pleas
in that Court he now appealed.

Henry acknowledged that such recognition had been made by his
Father at the time and place stated; but he also showed how
himself and his Brother being in Prison at Wigmore, his Father
had acted under fear on their account and lest evil should befal
them (ne de eis pejus eveniret) . He asks the Court's Judgment

n There was a technical distinction
between the writ " de ingressu " and the
writ " de nova disseizina." The former
applied to eases of disputed property or
right, the latter to cases of disputed pos-

session. If a party had brought his action
under the superior form, " de ingressu,*'
he could not, while that action was pend-
ing, sue under the inferior form.

232 TONG.

whether a recognition thus obtained should have force ; and that it
was thus obtained he was prepared to prove before a Jury {per
patriam) .

Mortimer hereupon expatiated on the freedom and impartiality
of the Curia Regis, adding that if things had been as the Plaintiff
stated, Pembruge Senior might have proclaimed the oppression in
open Court at Clarendon, and, refusing the Recognition required
of him, might have procured the enlargement of himself and his
Sons.

Thus far the pleadings on this occasion. —

A Postscript on the same Roll intimates that another hearing
took place at Westminster on Feb. 3 (1274), before Martin de
Littlebury and other Justices appointed to terminate pleas; that
again, after death of said Martin, the cause came before Ralph de
Hengham and his Fellows, and that then Mortimer appeared in
Court and asserted that judgment had been given in his favour at
the previous hearing before Martin de Littlebury, Nicholas de
Stapleton and Master Richard de Stanes. The two latter, being
survivors of the three, he called to bear record of the fact. Their
record was that judgment was given to this effect, viz. that " Mor-
timer and the other Defendants were dismissed sine die, and that
Henry de Pembruge was adjudged to be in misericordid for a false
claim."**—

Such was the redress which misfortune obtained when it wrestled
against power in the early years of King Edward, — the " English
Justinian."

I now proceed to give the substance of the Inquisitions which
were taken after the death of this Henry de Pembruge.

The King's writs of diem clausit extremum bear date 18 February
and 3 March 1279. A Worcestershire Inquest, which sat in con-
sequence, reported that the deceased held Leye (Legam) of the
Abbot of Pershore and that Fulk his son and next heir was eight
years of age.

A second Inquest, which sat at Salisbury Castle on May 5,
said that the deceased was Tenant of Lora de Saunford at North-
Tudeworth (Wilts), but that of the age of Fulk his next heir, the
Jurors knew nothing as he was not living in Wiltshire. The
same Jurors found that Henry de Pembruge once held Weston
sub Egge (Glouc.) of Walter Giffard, Archbishop of York, by

94 Placita apud Westm. coram Consilio Regis, Hilary Term, 2 Edw. I, memb. 17
recto ct dorso.

TONG.

283

service of one KnightVfee, but that the deceased, son of the
said Henry, had quitted all his right in Weston to the Archbishop,
for the Manor of Ullyngwyke (Heref.) and 1000 merks.

A third Inquest was taken at Salisbury Castle on December 28,
1279. The Jury found that the deceased had not held Tudworth
in capite, but that Roger la Zouche, who formerly held it under
John Biset, gave the Manor to Gilbert de Stanford (Sanford)
with his daughter Lora in frank-marriage, and that, after Gilbert's
death, 95 Lora gave it to Orabell, formerly wife of Henry de
Pembruge, and to Fulk the son of said Henry and Lora (read
Orabell).

A fourth Inquest which sat in Herefordshire on Jan. 8, 1280,
found that the deceased had held Gillock in capite by service of
finding one man for fifteen days in time of war, &c ; — also that
he had held a third part of the Manor of Ullingewyk of the Bishop
of Hereford (read Worcester) by one-third of a Knight's-Fee ; —
also that he held £4. 17s. 8tf. annual rent in Catteley of the gift
of William Devereux by service of lrf. per annum.

A fifth Inquisition sat Jan. 26, 1280, in Leicestershire, and
gave the following almost accurate account; viz. that William
de Harcourt, formerly Lord of Ayliston (Elstow), had two daughters,
Orabell and Margery, to whom conjointly he gave the Manors of
Ayliston and Tonge; — that afterwards Henry de Pembruge
married Orabell, and John de Cantilupe Margery; — that by consent,
Tong remained to Henry and Orabell, and Ayliston to John; —
that John and Margery died seized of Ayliston, but without issue,
so that thereby Ayliston reverted to Fulk the son and heir of
Henry de Pembruge, which Fulk was now under age; — that
Henry, Fulk's Father had therefore not died seized of Ayliston ; —
that the Manor was held of Richard de Harcourt by one Knightfs-
fee, and by Richard of the Earl of Winchester. 98

These details, though slightly inaccurate, supply a general and
quite intelligible truth. In this respect they differ widely from
some Records of Law proceedings which took place during Fulk
de Pembruge's minority. These latter, taken as they stand,
present us with inconsistent and impossible results; in fact, it is
evident that the Law-Clerk who recorded these pleas did not

* Gilbert de Saunford died in 1249,
leering a son and heir under age. Either
that heir never attained his majority, or

else was Gilbert's son by another wife
than Laura la Zouche.

« Inquisitions, 7 Edw. I, No. 12.

234

TONG.

understand their drift. I hare therefore thought it better, while
giving the substance of the original minutes, to insert in brackets
whatever 1 conceive to be necessary for their correction or ex»
planation. I should premise that Walter Giffard, Archbishop of
York, seems to have conveyed, between 1272 and 1279, the
Seigneury of Ullingwike to Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of Worcester.

In October 1282, the following is given as the result of a plea
heard before the King or his Deputies.

" The Bishop of Hereford (read Worcester) recovers his seizin
of two parts of the Manor of Ollingwyk alias Ullingwyk by reason
of the Minority of Henry de Penebrigg. Fulco, brother of the
same Henry, 97 who had custody of the said Henry by gift of the
Queen, concedes that all tenements which he holds of his brother's
inheritance together with the dower of Alice his wife (read Mother,
t. e. Mother of Henry, step-mother of Pulk, and widow of Henry
Fulk's father) shall be put in hochepot ; — and that Fulk shall have
two parts and Alice the third part, but not of the Manor of
Todeworth in Co. Wilts." 98

Another Record of this same plea intimates that it was heard at
Salop, in three weeks of Michaelmas 1282, before the King or his
Deputies. Its substance is as follows ; —

" The Sheriff had mandate to bring into Court Alice, widow of
Henry de Pembruge, that she might respond to Godfrey, Bishop of
Worcester, in the following suit/' — viz. " Whereas custody of two
parts of Ollingewyk, which belonged to Henry de Pembruge de-
ceased, except 17*. rent, pertained to the Bishop until the age of
the heir " (read devisee), " in that it was held by Knight's-service, —
and whereas Alice now held those parts in dower, — whether she,
Alice, had ought to allege why the said Bishop should not have
those two parts in custody/'

The Sheriff had also mandate to bring into Court "Fulk de Pem-
bruge, who was to have with him the heir (read younger son) of
Henry de Pembruge, in order that he Fulk, might do and receive
as regarded the tenements which Fulk holds of the inheritance of
the aforesaid heir (read younger son), and which had belonged to
Henry his (Henry's) Father, and brother (read Father) of the said
Fulk, whatever might appear just." —

97 Fulk Pembruge himself was not yet
twolve yean of age.

98 Abbrev. Placit. 274. I am unable
to discover the original or duplicate of

the original Record which the Abbreviator
of the Placita must have used in compiling
this abstract.

TONG.

285

Now Fulk appears ; and Alice appears, and concedes that the
Bishop may have custody of the said two parts of Uilingwyk saving
to Alice her goods lying in that Manor. So the Bishop recovers
the same.

Fulk, on the other hand, pleads that he cannot bring the heir
(devisee) into Court, because he is in the Queen's custody : and as
to the dower of Alice, Fulk concedes that all the tenements which
he, Fulk, holds of the inheritance of Henry his Brother, together
with the dower of Alice, be put in hochepot, and that Fulk should
have back two parts thereof and Alice have her dower. And Alice
agrees to this, if so be that she shall have such dower in the Manor
of Toddeworthe, Wiltshire. —

Fulk replies that Toddeworthe was not of the inheritance of
Henry (his Father), nor had he anything there except in the name
of Orabell his first wife, because he, Fulk, says that Lora de San-
ford gave the Manor to Orabell and to Fulk, OrabelTs son, by a
charter which he produces. Whereupon Fulk asks judgment of the
Court if Alice ought to have dower therein.

Alice replies that Henry (her husband) held the same by
inheritance, and asks that inquiry be made if it were not so. And
Fulk agrees.

Afterwards at Bristol in the Quinzame of Hilary, 13 Edw. I,
(Jan 27, 1285), a Jury found that Lora gave Tudworth to Orabell
and her heirs, so that Henry de Pembruge had held nothing there
except in name of Orabell, once his wife. A day to hear sentence
was given to the parties in the Quinzaine of Easter following.
" The whole of this last enrolment," adds the Record, " is to be
found in the Rolls of Hilary Term in the 13th year." 99

Of Alice widow of Henry de Pembruge and her son Henry, I
will attempt no further account, except to notice that she was living
in 1300 and unsuccessful in a suit about lands in " Brenchesle and
Pepingbury (Co. Herts) , 100

We return to Fulk de Pembruge, son and heir of Henry,
whose minority, though for some inexplicable cause, it is not once

* Placita apud Salop, Michaelmas
Term, 10 & 11 Edw. I, memb. 22. An
abstract of this plea, bat taken from
another and third original, ia given in
the Abbrev. Placitorum (page 104). It
indicates the dismissal sine die of Fulk
de Pembruge.

m Originalia, i, 113. Henry de Pem-

bruge son of Alice seems to hare founded
a* distinct house. It was probably he who
in 1808, and as a Knight, made a grant in
Wyneston (Gloucestershire) sealing the
deed with arms — Barry of six • * * ,
over aU a Bend. {Qlovei*s Collections, A,
fo. 109).

236 tono.

mentioned in the law-suits above detailed, endured for many years
after.

At Michaelmas 1280, the Sheriff of Shropshire rendered account
of £17. 14$. 9£d., " issues and rents of the Manor of Tonge, formerly
Henry de Pembruge's, viz. from Monday, January 16, 1279, till
January 13, 1280, before that the Manor was given up to William
Burnell as Custos in behalf of John de Binelard, to whom the
King had given custody of Henry's lands/' 101

The Feodary of 1284, says as follows, —

" Fulco de Penebrugge holds the Manor of Togge with the vill
of Norton (Tong Norton) of the Honour of Breyseynok (Brecknock
is meant), for one Knight* s-fee ; nor is there mention in the inqui-
sition as to whom the said Fulco holds under." 10 *

At the County Assizes, October 1292, the Brimstree Jurors
reported that Fulco de Penebrugg, a minor in the King's custody,
claimed to have assize of bread and beer, also to hold a Market and
Fair in his Manor of Tong. 103

In March 1293, the heir of Henry de Pembruge was found to be
holding Ayliston (Leicestershire) of the estate of Richard de Har-
court then deceased, by service of one KnightVfee. 10 *

Very soon after he attained his majority, Fulk de Pembruge
died. He left his wife Isabel surviving, and a son and heir Fulk,
not yet five years of age. On June 20th, 1296, the King's writ of
" diem clausit extremum " issued to the Escheator citra Trent, and
the Inquests which followed contain further particulars as to the
estate of the deceased. —

That which sat at Boscomb (Wilts) on July 23, 1296, reported
his tenure of Tudeworthe and found that Fulk his heir would be
five years of age on August 27, then next coming. —

The Leicestershire Inquest reported his tenure of the Manor of
Ayleston and rents in Stretton, and gave a similar account of the
age of his heir. —

The Herefordshire Inquest gave August 24, as the heir's birth-day,
and reported the tenures of the deceased in Gyllouch, Ullyngwyk,
and Catteley junta Upleden. —

A Fourth Inquisition sitting at Tong on July 11, 1296, found the
deceased to have held that Manor under Sir Alan la Zonche, whose
Grandfather Alan gave it (said these accurate Jurors) in marriage

101 Rot. Pip. 8 Edw. I, Salop. I m Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, m. 23.

'* Kirby'* Quest. Brimstree Hundred. I 1M Inqmuitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 46.

TONG.

237

with Alice, grandmother of Sir Fulk, lately deceased, who owed no
service thereon. They valued the Capital Messuage at 5*., the
Fishery of the Vivary at 2*. 8rf., the Dove-cot at Is. 8rf., the Water
Mill at £2. per annum. They enumerated various rents due from
the free tenants of the Manor, among which one of a Chaplet of
Roses is observable. The whole Manor and income they estimated
as worth £20. 19*. 8£tf. yearly. They found Fulk, the son and heir,
to have been four years old on Saturday August 27 previous. 105

I presume that Isabel, widow of the deceased, had Tong in dower,
for pursuant to the King's Writ dated at Portsmouth, May 24, 1297,
the Sheriff of Shropshire returned Isabel Lady of Tong, among
those who, holding lands or rents to the yearly value of £20. or
upwards, were (generally) liable to be summoned to perform military
service in person, with horse and arms, in parts beyond the seas, and
were to muster at London on July 7 following. 106

In 4 Edw. II (1310-11), consistent mention is made of Fulk de
Pembruge's heir as still under age. The King then intrusted his
land to Oliver de Bordeaux till he should attain his majority. 107

This last event will have been on August 27, 1312, and we have
several notices of him during the fourteen years of his remaining
life.

On the 1st of April 1314, being at Stanton Harecourt (Oxford-
shire), he acknowledges to have received from his Cousin, Monsieur
de Harecourt, Lord of Bosworth, a Charter of the Manor of Tong,
whereby Alan la Zouche gave and granted the same Manor to
Sir William de Harecourt and Alice his wife in frank-marriage. m

On June 15, 1314, Fulk, son of Fulk Penebrugge, was a Knight.
So describing himself and as Lord of Tong he quits to Sir Walter
de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, all his claim to a
plot of wood called Stryfwode, in Brewood. For this the Bishop
paid him £10. 109

*■ Inquisition*, 24 Edw. I, No. 31.

lM Parliamentary WrUa, i, 291.

W OriginaUa, i, 113.

189 Dodsworth, vol. 96. The consan-
guinity implied in this deed was thus : —
Sir William de Harcourt was Grandfather
of Sir John (the person who gave up the
Tong Charter) ; he was also Great-grand-
father of Fulk de Pembruge who acknow-
ledges receipt thereof. —

It would seem that when Alan La
Zouche had, by composition under the
II.

Dictum de Kenilworth, secured Tong for
his Sister's issue, the Title-deeds had re-
mained with the male line of William de
Harcourt, that Sister's husband.

109 Lichfield Register (Ashmol. MSS.
1527). The deed is dated at Lichfield,
and tested by Sir Robert de Stepulton,
Sir Alexander de Frevill, Sir John GuTard,
and Sir Roger de Ocovre, Knights ; also
by William de Freford, Henry de Hare-
court, and Roger de Pulesdon.

238

TONG.

In time, as it would seem, of Edward II, Fulke de Pennebrugge,
Lord of Tonge, appoints Nicholas le Taylour of Tonge, his Attorney,
to overlook an exchange between William de Pres and Fulke's
tenants of Norton and Tonge, of that land called the Old-Castle. 110

This Fulk de Pembruge also granted a Charter of Confirmation
to Buildwas Abbey which contains several points of interest. It
specifies free road for the Monks' sheep and animals, to be driven
to and from their Grange of Rochlegh, to their pasture of Donyn-
tone, beyond the rivulet under Chelfesford, through Fulk's wood
of Rochlegh ; also that the Monks may make a fence from the
corner of their field of Rochlegh to the rivulet aforesaid ; also that
they may make and maintain a bridge upon Fulk's land beyond the
said rivulet and have easements of the bank of the said rivulet to
repair said bridge when needful, as by the Charters of Roger, son
of Alan la Zouche, and of Richard de Bealmeys is testified respecting
the said bridge : also that, if at any time, from scarcity of their
live stock, the Monks should neglect to use these liberties of road
and bridge, it should not be to their prejudice or prevent them from
reviving the dormant right when they chose; he also grants them a
site for making a Mill at Tylesmendeslode-stank, with water-course
and right of road through his land to the said mill, and earth to
repair the stank when needful, " as was contained in a fine levied
in the Curia Regis about making the said Mill, between the Abbot
of Buildwas and Alan de la Zouche formerly Lord of the Manor of
Tonge/' 111

On 16 Oct. 1313, Fulk de Pembruge was included among those
adherents of Thomas Earl of Lancaster who having participated in
the death of Piers Gaveston had the King's pardon.

In the Feodary of March 1316, called Nomina Villarum, he

"° Dugdale's MSS. (vol. K, fo. 11) in
Bibl. Ashm. — fitom a deed in Dugdale's
own possession. The transcript gives
30 Edw. II for the date of this docu-
ment, where of course there is a mistake
as to the year, or else the reign. I have
supposed the former, as the Fulk de Pem-
bruge of 30 Edw. I was an Infant, and
the last Fulk de Pembruge will hardly
have succeeded so early as 30 Edw. III.
Still there is doubt about the matter.
The Deed was sealed with Arms — Barry
of six.

111 Charter in possession of George

Pritchard, Esq. of Broseley. The wit-
nesses are Sir Walter de Huggeford, Sir
William de Forcer, Knights ; Roger Carles,
Hugh de Bealmeys, Henry de Bealmeys,
and others. I have already estimated the
date of this deed to be about 1312, i.e. on
Fulk Pembruge' 8 attaining his majority.
The seal is a coat of arms, well executed,
and charged with — Barry of six. The
Legend is — S. Fulconia de Pexbsigg.

Mr. Dukes (Appendix, lxvi) has given
an abstract of this deed, but the date
assigned thereto (1229) must be a typo-
graphical error.

TONO.

239

is returned as Lord of Tong (Co. Salop) and of UUingswick
(Herefordshire). 113

On Aug. 14, 1319, he had license to exchange ten acres in Tong
with the Prioress of White-Ladies who was to give him other ten
acres in the same Manor. 113

He served as a Knight of the Shire of Salop at the Parliament of
York in May 1322, and was returned as a Knight of the Shire
of Gloucester to a second Parliament holden at York in November
of the same year. 114

His various employments as a Commissioner to levy Archers, a
Commissioner of Array, or Inspector of Levies ; his summonses to
Councils at home or military service abroad, are too numerous to
mention here. In the years 1323-1325, his name occurs no less
than eighteen times in one or other such connection. 116

He died on January 8, 1326. The King's Writ of Diem clausit
extremum issued to the Escheator of Salop, Staffordshire, and Glou-
cestershire on January 21, and an Inquisition as to his estate was
held at Tong on Feb. 25 following. The Jurors found that he had
held nothing in capite, that he and Matilda his wife had held con-
jointly the Manor of Tong under William la Zouche, by service of one
Knight's-fee and as a member of Ashby de la Zouche : that they
had it by feoffment of Henry de Byrmentham (Bermingham), who
by fine levied in the King's Court had enfeoffed them, with entail
upon their heirs male : that Fulk their son and heir was fifteen
years of age on Nov. 30 previous. 116

The Inquisitions of other Counties do not seem to be preserved.

Of Fulk de Pembruge (III), thus proved to have been born Nov.
30, 1310, I have only one notice after he attained his majority.
In 1333, Robert Corbet of Hadley and Matilda his wife had reco-
vered against Fulk son of Fulk de Pembruge, the Manor of Ayleston
(Leicestershire) . 117

I presume Matilda, thus named, to have been Fulk's Mother, who,

,u Parliamentary Writ*, iy, 1271.

m Pat. 18 Edw. II, memb. 37.

1,4 Parliamentary Write, 866, 399.

l * Ibidem, p. 1271 ; Fadera, ii, 692.

116 Inquisitions, 19 Edw. II, No. 56.
Henry de Birmingham had, of course,
been a Feoffee in Trust. I doubt not
that Matilda, wife of Fulk de Pembruge,
was of the family of Bermingham.

"* OriginaUa, ii, 82. In 8 Edw. Ill
(1834-5) I find, by an unyouched note,
that Alice de Penneburge was suing under
writ of novel disseizin for land in Tonge.
Robert Corbet of Hadley Chevr. and
Matilda his wife were the defendants.

Whether this Alice were Sister or
Widow of Fulk Pembruge of 1333 I will
not venture to my.

240

TONG.

having since 1326 remarried to Robert Corbet, had now recovered
Ayleston as her dower.

I have seen no original documentary evidence which will enable
me to state the descent from Fulk Pembrnge III (living 1333) to
Fulk IV who died in 1408-9.

Shaw informs us of a Robert de Pembruge living in 20 Edw. Ill
(1346-7), and whom Shaw takes to have been Brother and Heir of
Fulk III, and Father of Fulk IV. 118

The latter occurs in 1371, with Margaret his wife, daughter and
eventual sole heir of William Trussel of Cublesdon, by his wife Ida
(or Idonea) le Botyler. 119

Margaret, first wife of Fulk de Pembruge IV, died without issue
June 11, 1402. Fulk took a second wife, Isabel or Elizabeth
Lingen, but dying without issue, in 10 Henry IV (1308-9), closed
the male line of his succession at Tong.

In 12 Hen. IV (1410-1) Isabel, relict of Fulk Pembruge, was
busy in the Religious Foundation, since known as Tong College,
the particulars of which are amply detailed elsewhere. 180

Isabel long survived her first husband, long enough (as Shaw has
it) to remarry twice, viz. to Sir Thomas Peytevine and Sir John
Ludlow. 121 She died in 25 Hen. VI (1446-7).

The heir of the last Sir Fulk Pembruge of Tong was Richard de
Vernon (sometimes called Richard de Pembruge). He was, if
former accounts be correct, son and heir of Richard de Vernon, son
and heir of another Richard de Vernon, by Juliana, sister of the
said Fulk de Pembruge. 128 All that I shall here add of this Richard
de Vernon, thus succeeding to his supposed Great Uncle's estates
after the death of Isabel, the said Great Uncle's surviving wife, is,
that he was a Minor in 1402, a Knight in 1418, and that he died in
1451, seized of various Vernon and Pembruge estates, viz. Pyche-
cote (Bucks.), Harlaston (Staffordshire), Haddon (Derbyshire), Tong,
Ayleston and Ullingwyke.

118 History of Staffordshire^ Additions,
p. 88.

119 Dugdale (Baronage, p. 595) makes
Ida le Botyler to be wife, not wife's
Mother, of Fulk de Pembruge. The true
account is however given in the History
of Warwickshire.

120 Monasticon, viii, 1401.

121 I hardly credit this. — Shaw's notion

seems to have arisen from the circum-
stance that Henry IVs charter of Nov.
1410, directed that the future Canons of
Tong should pray for the souls (inter
alios) of these two Knights. So the
Dame Isabel would, at that rate, have
got rid of three husbands in less than
the same number of years.

123 Dukes' Antiquities, pp. 188, 189.

TONG.

241

Of the Undertenants in this Manor I can say little more than
is implied in the above account of the Lords of the Fee.

Distinct notice should however be taken of a younger branch of
the family of De Belmeis, which had early feoffment in Tong and
elsewhere, and is on the whole easily distinguishable from those
other Cadets of the same house of whom we have given account
under Donington.

Whether William de Beaumeis who stands first witness of the
very ancient deed quoted under Hatton were progenitor of the
Tong or Donington branch, of both or of neither, I will not under-
take to say. — I only guess him to have been of Donington.

1 should be similarly doubtful as to that Robert de Belmeis, who
about 1139 was first witness of Philip de Belmeis' grant to
Build was : but the nearly contemporary deed of Richard de Belmeis
(of Donington) seems to exclude Robert from that branch of the
family. Therefore very possibly the said Robert was of Tong.

Again I notice suggestively how the Deed of Philip de Belmeis
Junior to Lilleshall, which passed between 1152 and 1159, is
attested not only by Sir Richard de Belmeys (undoubtedly of Don-
ington) but by Robert de Belmeys and William his Brother. On
the Staffordshire Pipe Roll of 1185, among some payments arising
from a recent visit of the Justices of the Forest, it is entered that
Robert de Belmes owes one merk, apparently for something sold
out of the King's Forest. 123

The same Justices holding pleas in Shropshire in the same year
had further amerced Robert de Beaumes 20*. for some default. —

The latter fine he paid and was quit, but the former is renewed
as an unsatisfied debt on the Staffordshire Pipe-Roll of 1186,
with a note to the effect that payment should be required in
Shropshire.

However in 1187, he pays half-a-merk to the Sheriff of Stafford-
shire, the other half remaining a debt on the Staffordshire Rolls of
1188, 1189, 1190, 1191 ; but transferred to the Shropshire Roll of
1192, and liquidated in Shropshire in 1193.

On Nov. 24, 1194, Robert de Beaumis is the first named of the
four Knights who reported to the Courts at Westminster their
view of certain litigated lands at Astley Abbots and Brug. 124

m Sot. Pip. 31 Hen. II, Staffordshire.
Pro extravendito deforest a is the expres-
sion, — explained by the entry on the Boll

of 32 Hen. II, which gives " Pro bosco in
foresta vendito."

m Supra, Vol. I, p. 47.

242

TONG.

At the same period or rather earlier, he attests a grant of Walter
de Dunstanvill, Lord of Idshale. 12 *

On April 23, 1200, the same Robert appears as Recognizor in a
suit which concerned lands at Evelith (near Shiffhal) . 1M

At the County Assizes, October 1203, Robert de Beaumeys
essoigned himself from attendance at the general summons.

In succession as I imagine to this Robert, was that Sir William
de Beumys who has already been mentioned as having given to
John de Pres some feoffment in Tong Manor ; 127 which feoffment,
apparently granted in the first half of the thirteenth Century, was
confirmed by Alan la Zouche between 1255 and 1263.

In 1255, another Robert de Beaumes occurs under circumstances
which leave no doubt of his being a vassal of the Lords of Tong.

Such a person had obtained from Alan la Zouche the wardship
of Ralph, son of Nicholas de Wililey, so far as related to a hide of
land at Gretton (Munslow Hundred) ; which hide of land, as I shall
elsewhere show, was held by De Wililey under La Zouche, and by
La Zouche in capite of the King. 128

Though I shall be somewhat interfering with the history of
another locality, I should here state briefly that on Aug. 17, 1260,
Giles de Erdinton was appointed specially to try a suit of novel
desseizin which William, son of William le Fraunceys and Agnes
his wife, had brought against Robert Beumys concerning a tene-
ment in Stanwey. 129

On December 28, 1260, King Henry III granted his Letters-
Patent of Protection in favour of Robert de Beumes, so long as the
said Robert should be in the service of Prince Edward in parts
beyond sea. 130

On June 3, 1261, a Fine was levied at Westminster which
indicates the purchase by Robert de Belmeis of half-a-virgate and
one acre of land in Nether Stanwey, for which he paid ten merks
to the Vendors. 181

In 46 Hen. 3 (1261-2), the King granted to Robert de Belmeis

m "Wombridge Chartulary, Tit Lega
Priori*, <j*c, No. ii.

138 Rot. Curia Regit, ii, 199.

w Supra, p. 223.

138 Rot. Bund, ii, 70, where however I
suspect that we should read Andrew for
Ralph, the former being the name of
Nicholas de Wililey's infant heir. The

mistake, however, if it be one, is cir-
cumstantially repeated in a contemporary
notice of Kenley, another of De Wililey's
Manors.

m Mot. Pat. 44 Hen. Ill, dorso.

w Ibidem, 45 Hen. III.

191 Pedes FinUtm, 45 Hen. Ill, Salop.

TONG.

243

a license, empowering him to hunt certain animals, under the usual
limitations, and only in the County of Salop. 132

Within the next five years, Robert de Belmeis was deceased, leav-
ing a widow Matilda, who remarried to Hugh de la Val. His heir,
and, as I imagine, his Son, was Hugh de Belmeis, a youth whose
loyal services to King Henry III are matters of frequent and
honourable mention in the annals of the period.

On Sept. 30, 1265, that is in the month following the great
victory of Evesham, the King grants his Letters of Protection in
behalf of Hugh de Beumes. 188

In 1266, being one of that Monarch's Valets, he attended him at
the siege of Kenilworth Castle, and, losing his two horses in that
service, was recompensed for the same. The Sheriff of Shropshire,
in 1268, charges ten merks which he had paid on this account to
Hugh de Beaumes by Royal Warrant. 184

On March 15, 1267, being at Cambridge with the King, Hugh de
Beaumes obtained the Royal License to hunt the fox, the badger,
and the wild cat anywhere in the King's Forests of Shropshire or
Staffordshire. 186

In August 1267, the King being at Shrewsbury and various
Pleas coming before him, Hugh de Beaumes was, with others, pro-
secuted about some right of common-pasture in Over and Nether
Stanwey. Hugh amicably compounded his concern in the suit. 186

On Sept. 19, the King, still at Salop, in recompense of the long
and laudable service which his beloved Valet, Hugh de Beaumeys
had rendered him, granted to said Hugh the marriage of Isabella
widow of Robert de Beysyn, lately deceased, or at least the fine
which belonged to the King for the said marriage. 197

On January 20, 1270, two Pines were levied at Westminster
which show Hugh de Beaumes intent upon increasing his property
in the neighbourhood of Tong.

The first, levied between the said Hugh as Plaintiff (by Stephen
Fitz Henry Tateshale his Attorney) and Ranulf de Albrython and
Alice his wife, Defendants, was of six acres in Donyngton, whereof
was Plea of Warrantry. The Defendants acknowledged the same to
be the Plaintiff's right by their own gift — to hold to Hugh and his
heirs, of Ranulf and Alice, and the heirs of Alice, by a clove rent and

m Patent, 46 Hen. III.

m Patent, 49 Hen. III.

™ Bat. Pip. 62 Hen. Ill, Salop.

"* Patent, 61 Hen. III.

186 Plaeita coram Eege apud Salop,
51 Hen. Ill, memb. 7.
v Patent, 61 Hen. in.

244 TONG.

by rendering all services due to the Chief Lords. For this Hugh
gave six merks.

A second Fine between the same Plaintiff and Nicholas Kareles
and Burgia his wife Defendants, was of forty acres in Dunnyngton
and was (mutatis mutandis) settled as the last, Hugh paying the
greater sum of thirty-nine merks. 188

On Feb. 9, 1270, by another Fine, Hugh de Beaumes purchased
for twenty-five merks from Hugh de la Val and Matilda his wife
a third part of two carucates in Stanwey, claimed by the latter as
Matilda's dower in the estate of Robert de Beaumes, her former
husband. 189

On July 5, 1270, the King, by Letters Patent, again making
mention of the services of his beloved Valet, Hugh de Beaumes,
grants him, as far as he (the King) had it, the marriage of Hillaria
Widow of William de Harecurt deceased; or else such fine as
said Hillaria might be about to make with the King for her own
marriage ; or, in the last place, such forfeit as would be coming to
the King if Hillaria married to any other, without license of the
King or of said Hugh. 140

It will presently appear that neither Isabel de Beysin nor this
Hillaria (daughter of a Hastings and Mother of a Harcourt) be-
came the wife of the King's Valet. —

Unhonoured with the hand of either, but doubtless enriched with
the Fines of both, Hugh de Beaumes found a wealthy wife
elsewhere.

On May 18, 1271, Hugh de Beaumes had the King's Charter,
to him and his heirs, of the privilege of holding a Fair and Market
in his Manor of Nether Stanwey. 141 This Manor, with all ' his
rights therein, he sold, within the next twenty years, to his con-
temporary and perhaps distant kinsman, John de Beaumeis Lord
of Donington.

On June 24, 1272, a Fine was levied at Lichfield between
Hugh de Beaumes and Isolda his wife on the one hand, and
William de Mer on the other. Hugh, for an annual rent of 40*.,
released, for the life of Isolda, to said William, all her demesne in
Norton and Mer (Staffordshire) being her dower, also a third part
of half-a-virgate of land and a meadow, held by John de Mer
in Norton. Sir Nicholas de Audley and others attested the
transaction. 142

issue PedctFtmwn, 54 Hen. TIT, Salop. I M1 Rot. Chartarum, 55 Hen. HI.

"° Patent, 54 Hen. III. I ,43 Bldkeway' 9 Parochial Notices,Yolii,

TONG. 245

At the County Assizes, September 1272, the Jurors both of
Stottesden and Brimstree Hundreds, reported Hugh de Beaumes
to be a Defaulter in due attendance. His liability arose doubtless
in circumstances already alluded to, viz. in Stottesden Hundred, as
Custos of certain lands of Robert de Beysin deceased, in Brim-
stree Hundred, as a Tenant at Donington and perhaps Albrighton.

Between this period and the close of the Century, the name of
Sir Hugh de Beaumes appears in connection with various Inquisi-
tions and Charters affecting lands in Brimstree Hundred.

In October 1292, as a Knight and Juror, he tried several of
those suits de quo waranto which were then pressed by the Crown
against every class of Freeholders in Shropshire. 143

Something I should also say about the larger interests of this
Hugh de Beaumeis in Lincolnshire.

In 1277, and preparatory to a Muster at Worcester against
Llewellyn, which was fixed for July 1, he was returned as holding
the township of Limberge (Lincolnshire) of the honour of Chester
(then in the Crown) but by unknown services. 144

For a similar Muster at Bhuddlan, fixed to take place on Aug. 5,
1282, he is returned under the same County, as ignorant of what
service was due from him, but prepared, on being informed, to do it. 145

For the Muster against the Scots, to take place at Carlisle on
June 24, 1300, he was summoned in Lincolnshire, viz. as holding
lands, whether in capite or otherwise, to the annual value of £40.
or upwards. 146

This Tenure in capite, for such it really was, caused the usual
Inquisitions to be holden as to his estate after his death. This
event took place in 1305, when, on May 20, the King's writ of
Diem clausit extremum issued to the Escheator.

An Inquest held at Limbergh found that he held that vill in
capite by service of half-a-Knight's-Fee, that the whole proceeds of
the same were £5. 7s., and that his son and next heir, Henry, was
twenty-eight years of age and more.

A second Inquest held at Lude Muchegros (Herefordshire) found
that he had been Tenant for life of half that vill, holding it under

p. 319. It caused me much perplexity
when, on first meeting with this Record,
I hastily concluded that Norton and
Mere were in Tong Manor, and so that
Hugh de Beaumes must after all have
married William de Harcourt's Widow.
The Norton and Mere alluded to were on

the Western Border of Staffordshire, near
Market Drayton. Isold* was probably
widow of some Feoffee thereof.

148 Plac. de Quo Waranto, pp. 674,
&c.

u« 145 146 Parliamentary Write, vol. i,
pp. 200, 233, 334.

II. 32

246 TONG.

Gerard de Benefford by service of a sixth part of a Knight's- Fee ;
that it was of the inheritance of Isolda formerly Hugh's wife, and
that he had held it for life by Law of England (having had issue
by her) ; that Henry, son of Hugh and Isolda, was the heir of both
and that he was twenty-eight years of age on Dec. 21, 1304.

A third Inquest taken at Albrighton on June 12, 1305, said that
the deceased held in Donynton under John de Beumys by services of
18tf. and a pound of cumin ; that he thus held a Capital messuage,
a dove-cot, thirty acres of land, and one acre of Meadow : that he
further held under John la Warre, Lord of Albrighton, forty acres
of land by service of 8d. The age and name of his heir were
returned as in the last Inquest. 147

Henry de Beaumes, thus succeeding, seems by various lists of
Jurors and Witnesses to have resided in this neighbourhood. 148 I
have already mentioned his name in such relation and shall content
myself with one more notice of him and his succession.

In Trinity Term 1329, a fine was levied at Westminster between
John, son of Henry de Beaumes of Magna Lymbergh, and Tecia,
daughter of Robert Fitz Peter of Magna Lymbergh, Complainants
(querentes), through Hugh de Kilby her (Tecia's) Guardian, on
the one part, and Henry de Beaumes of Magna Lymbergh,
Deforciant, — of the Manor of Donynton whereof was plea of con-
vention. Henry conceded the same to John and Tecia, to hold to
them and the heirs of their bodies under Henry and his heirs;
rendering to them a Rose yearly at the feast of John Baptist's
Nativity, and accustomed services to the Chief Lords of the Fee.
Remainder was contingently reserved to Henry and his heirs. 149

This Fine was in short a settlement and entail on the marriage
of John de Beaumeis, son, and probably expectant heir, of Henry;
but how their interest in Donington came to be described as the
Manor I cannot determine.

BUCKLEY.

This ancient member of the Manor of Tong seems to require some
distinct notice, though I have already given the chief particulars of
its early history.

W Inquisitions, 23 Edw. I, No. 16.

148 It was, I imagine, to the estate of this
bianch of the Belmeis family that the Mes-
suage still known as Beamish Hall belonged.
It is in Albrighton Parish. The old Manor
House was taken down some years since.

The name Beamish is yet to be found
among the poorer classes of Tong or its
neighbourhood.

149 Fines, 3 Edw. HI, Bundle i, No. 14,
Salop.

TONG.

247

When Philip de Belmeis in 1 138-9 gave to Buildwas Abbey all
the land of Selfer de Rochelai, his gift undoubtedly included the
whole township 150 of Buckley, except a wood which, under the name
of Buckley- Wood, was, as we have seen, retained by his Suc-
cessors. —

This was then the germ of that estate, which by successive
accumulations in Cosford, Donington, Hatton, Upton, and Byton,
constituted at the end of the thirteenth century by far the fairest of
the outlying possessions of Buildwas Abbey.

The matter stood thus in 1291 ; —

The whole Temporalities of Buildwas, in the Archdeaconry of
Salop and Diocese of Coventry, were returned as annually realizing
an income of £76. 12s. 3rf. Of this sum, more than a quarter (viz.
£19. 5*. 4rf.) came from the estate in question, that is from Roke-
leye £3. 6*. 4rf., from Atton £7. 4s. 6d. 9 from Ritton 1Q*\, and from
Cospeforde JE8. 4*. 6rf., which sums must be taken to include what-
ever the Monks had at Donington and Upton.

Rokeleye (contributing £3. 6s. 4d. in gross) was estimated as
half-a-carucate of land worth 10*. per annum, and as maintaining
stock, the profits on which (£2. 16*. 4sd.) made up the balance. 161

TONG CHURCH.

The early history of Tong Church is as that of Donington. It
was founded, endowed, and bestowed on Shrewsbury Abbey within
eight years after Domesday, by Earl Roger de Montgomery. The
transfer was sanctioned by the same succession of Royal Charters
as have been mentioned under Donington. Also, as in the case of
Donington, Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London, held Tong
Church under the Abbey for his life, and took care to restore it
before his death. 1 * 8

Furthermore the pension to which Shrewsbury Abbey was
entitled from Tong Church was half-a-merk, and this pension was
confirmed, first by the Charter of Bishop Roger de Clinton, and
afterwards, by Charters of his Diocesan Successors, and of more than
one Archbishop of Canterbury. 1 * 8

«• In 1180 the vilkUe of Roceleia was
one of those in thia neighbourhood which
were amerced for purpresture (Forest
tolls at Westminster, No. i, Salop.)
It is with reference to this fact that I use
the word " township" in the text.

141 Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 200.

145 Supra, page 200.

"* See the authorities specified under
Donington (supra, p. 166). No. 328 of
the Salop Chartulary, purporting to be a
confirmation by Roger Bishop of Chester,

248

TOKG.

These rights of Pension and Advowson were, I should observe,
two distinct things. The Abbot might present one Clerk to the
Incumbency or Parsonage, and another to the Pension, or he might
present the same Clerk to both, or he might reserve the Pension to
his House. These points as well as the Abbot's title to Tong
Church are well illustrated by some legal proceedings between
Roger la Zouche and Salop Abbey, in the course of which the
following facts transpired.

Between the years 1188 and 1194, H (thatis Hugh de Novant),
Bishop of Coventry conceded and gave by Charter, to Ernulf, a
Chaplain, the Church of Tong, — in pure almoigne, — to possess in
perpetuity, — saving to the Bishop all rights Episcopal and Paro-
chial.

This institution, as it afterwards appeared, was to the Parsonage
as distinct from the Pension, and was on the presentation of Salop
Abbey.

William la Zouche, Lord of Tong, was not well-pleased with this
proceeding. He expelled Ernulf from Tong and would not allow
him to live there. Ernulf 's expulsion lasted some time.

Ernulf at length returned and continued to hold the Church all
his life (i. e. till 1220, when he died), as Presentee of the Abbey, not
as Roger, brother and heir of William la Zouche, afterwards affirmed,
by gift of the said William.

Meanwhile, that is between 1215 and 1220, William de Cornhull,
Bishop of Coventry, at presentation of H (Hugh), Abbot of Salop,
gave and conceded by Charter to Robert de Shireford, Clerk, the
Church of Tong, saving the Vicarage therein of Ebiulf, Canon of
Lichfield, who was to pay a yearly pension of half-a-merk to the
said Robert. —

This was in fact an immediate institution only to the pension,
a circumstance rendered still more clear by the words of Abbot
Hugh's presentation, on receipt of which the Bishop instituted.
Therein the Abbot conceded to Robert de Shireford half-a-merk
out of the Church of Tong, viz. that half-merk which Ernulf,
Clerk, Canon of Lichfield, had used to pay to the Abbey, and which

puts the pension at 8«. 4d., like that of
Donington. This Charter contains so
many points of identity with Bishop
Boger de Clinton's Charter (Karl. MS3.
3868, fo. 7 b), that I cannot doubt them
to have been copied from the same

original. If so, their few discrepancies
are mere scribal errors. The Harleian
Transcript is undoubtedly the more
correct, and gives the pensions in ques-
tion as 6s. Sd. each.

TONG. 249

for remainder of Ernulf s life was to be paid to Shireford ; but after
Ernulf s death, Shireford was to have the Church wholly (i.e. the
Parsonage), and pay the pension, previously received by himself, to
the Abbey.

Therefore, on the whole, Robert de Shireford had been presented
to the pension and to the reversion of the Incumbency, and Bishop
CornhulPs institution must be taken to have sanctioned such a
mode of presentation.

On November 3, 1220, Ernulf, the Vicar and Parson, being
lately dead, Roger la Zouche sued the Abbot of Shrewsbury, at
Westminster, under writ of darrein presentment for the Advowson
of Tong. The question in such trials was always — " who presented
the last Parson, then dead, to the vacant Church under litigation?"
In the present instance, the Abbot pleaded at once that the Church
was not vacant, for Robert de Shireford was Parson. In proof of
this, he produced Robert de Shireford in Court. Also Bishop
CornhulPs Charter of Institution was exhibited, also Earl Roger's
grant of the Advowson, and Henry IPs Confirmation, and a Papal
Bull, and Abbot Hugh's presentation.

Roger la Zouche persisted that Ernulf, lately deceased, had been
presented by William la Zouche, saving to the Abbot an annual
pension, in name of benefice (nomine beneficii), and that the right
of presentation to all else remained to him.—

As Roger la Zouche asserted that Ernulf, now deceased, was the
last Parson, the Court decided on an adjournment, and that that
point should be referred to a Jury of Knights and other Freemen,
who were summoned to attend at Westminster on Feb 3, 1221. 15 *

The cause however was not finally decided till the County
Assizes of November 1221. —

The Abbot again produced the Charters of Earl Roger, King
Henry II, and Bishop Cornhull. Roger la Zouche said that the
two former Charters ought not to injure him, for that, since they
passed, his Brother William had presented to the Church. He
admitted that his Ancestors had charged Tong Church with half-a-
merk pension payable to Salop Abbey, and allowed that to such
pension the Abbot might present any Clerk he pleased. He asserted
again that Ernulf had been Parson, and had been admitted on
presentation of his (Roger's) Brother. —

The Abbot now produced the Charter of Bishop Hugh de Novant,

w Placita apud Westm. Michaelmas Term, 4 & 5 Hen. Ill, memb. 14 doroo.

250

TONG.

which decided indeed that Ernulf was Parson; bat whereas the
Charter did not express by whom the said Ernulf was presented to
Bishop Hugh, it would seem that at this point the case went to the
Jury. The latter decided that Ernulf, late Parson, had been pre-
sented by the Abbot and admitted on such presentation : they also
found how Ernulf had been expelled for a time by William la
Zouche and then suffered to return. 156 In feet, I suppose that this
return by permission of William la Zouche had caused Roger la
Zouche's error, he identifying it with a presentation by William la
Zouche. Be that as it may, the Court gave sentence that " The
Abbot do recover his Seizin and that Roger be in misericordid"

In 1291, the Church of Tonge in the Deanery of Newport (Novi
Burgi), the Archdeaconry of Salop, and Diocese of Coventry, was
valued at £4., besides the Abbot of Shrewsbury Pension therein,
which was put, as before, at 6*. 8rf. 156

In 1341, the Assessors and Vendors of the Ninth of wheat,
wool, and lamb in Tong Parish, returned the proceeds at £3. 6*. 8d.
t. e. £h less than Pope Nicholas 1 Taxation of the Church. This
low return, if I understand their statement, arose thus. — The Abbot
of Buildwas held a carucate of land in the Parish (at Buckley, I
presume) which did not pay tithe, but, in lieu of tithe, three quarters
of fine wheat (which I infer was all he could be charged to the
Ninth) : 167 — also the Abbot of Lilleshull had a carucate of land here
(Lizard Orange), and paid 3*. 4rf. only thereon, in lieu of tithe;
also the small-tithes, glebe-land, oblations, tithes of Mills, and other
profits went to make up the greater sum (the taxation), and did not
pertain to the Ninth now granted to the King. 168

When Isabel, Widow of Sir Fulke de Pembruge, proposed to
found the Collegiate Church of Tong she procured in the first
instance the Royal License to purchase the Advowson from Salop
Abbey. —

King Henry IV's Patent, dated Nov. 25, 1410, enabled her so to
do, calling the Church that of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, and

m Salop Ajuuety 6 Hen. HE, memb. 6
dono.
m Pope Nicholas* Taxation, pp. 245,

247.

U7 It would appear however from some
other entries (*. g. Idsall, Albrighton, and
Stirchley) that the Abbot of Buildwas
was exempt from contributing to the
Ninth at all ; but at Cound he was spe-

cially assessed.

On the whole the Abbot of Buildwas'
Tenure in any Parish operated to reduce
the Ninth assessed on such Parish ; but
it is not clear whether this result was in
consequence of special compositions of
tithe or of some more general exemption.

,M Inquii. Nonarum, p. 193.

TONG. 251

reserving to the Abbot the pension of 6*\ 8rf. which he and his pre-
decessors had been used to receive therefrom. 159

In the receipts of his House, during the year ending Michaelmas
1534, the Abbot of Salop returned the ancient pension of 6*. Sd.
as paid by the College of Tong; and in the following year the
Master of Tong College stated the value of the Parochial Church,
annexed to the said College, to be £6. 13*. 4rf. per annum, but made
no deduction on account of the said Pension. He deducted only
4s. per annum, payable out of the Church to the Diocesan Bishop,
2s. Senage payable to the same, and 8*. Procurations payable to
the Archdeacon of Salop. 160

EARLY INCUMBENTS.

Eenulf, Chaplain, and afterwards a Canon of Lichfield, has
already been mentioned as instituted to this Church between 1188
and 1194. On his death in 1220, Robert de Shireford, Clerk,
entitled by a previous grant to the reversion of the Parsonage,
succeeded, not however without question, till November 1221, when
his title to do so was established in the Secular Courts.

William, Parson op Tono, was in 1255 reported by the Jurors
of Brag as having impleaded Walter de Ingworthin, a Layman,
before a spiritual Court, and having got from him 10*. because said
Walter would not sell him boots to his wish. 161

The first Incumbent on the Diocesan Register is : —

Robert be Atterlet, Rector of Tonge, who has a two years
license to study on May 9, 1308. He has occurred to us under
Donington in 1324. On May 30, 1334, he has leave of five months
non-residence on the score of ill health (causft medicinae); and on
Jan. 29, 1335 he proposes to exchange benefices with —

Master William de Ktnardbsbte, Acolyte, late Rector of
St. Mary's, Bristol, who is admitted to Tong by the Bishop of
Worcester on Feb. 4 following.

On April 13, 1351, this Rector has a year's leave of non-residence ;
and again on July 15, 1354, at instance of the Bishop of Bath and
Wells. On Jan. 9, 1355, he is negotiating an exchange of benefices
with —

Sir Robert Alewy, late Rector of Farnebergh (Dioc. Bath and
Wells), who is admitted here on Jan. 19 by the Bishop of Bath and

» Monastics, yiii, p. 1402.

100 Volar Ecclesiastic**, iii, 189, 196.

m Sot. Hund. ii, 69. The won! which

I have translated "boots" is in the original
" estimalia." In so translating it I have
ventured to read " estiTalia."

252 TONG.

Wells) , and on Feb. 7 has the Bishop of Lichfield's Mandate of
Induction directed to the Official of the Archdeacon of Salop, and
alleging the presentation of this Rector by the Abbot and Con-
vent of Salop. On Nov. 27, 1355, Alewy is exchanging benefices
with —

John de Caynton, Rector of Axebrugge (Bath and Wells Dioc.)
who is admitted here, in the usual way, on Dec. 15 ; and the man-
date for whose Induction bears date Dec. 22 following. 189

ABCHITECTUBAL NOTICE OP THE OHUEOH.

Tong Church, which consists of a nave with aisles, a Chancel,
and a central octagonal tower with a low spire, was principally
built during the reign of Henry IV, and is a pure and beautiful
example of the Early Perpendicular. To this date also belongs the
south porch, and the vestry attached to the north side of the
Chancel. But a Chapel on the south side, forming a sort of tran-
sept, was added during the latest period of Gothic, and has a rich fan
vaulting, all the other roofs of the Church being timber. I gave
a notice of this Church in the second volume of the 'Archaeolo-
gical Journal/ but at the time I wrote it, I had not remarked some
earlier features which appear in the south aisle, in the shape of
labels of arches, with their corbels or brackets, and the capitals of
the piers. These lead me to suspect that the face of the arcade
now looking to the south aisle, originally faced the nave of an
older building, the north aisle of which would fall into the area
of the present nave; — for a greater amount of ornament would
naturally be introduced in the side facing the central passage, than in
that towards the aisle ; that is, if any difference between the two was
made. At any rate, a part of the present structure, however small,
may be referred to the thirteenth century*

J. L. Petit.

OLD MONUMENT.

I have already descended far later than my usual limits in order
that I might trace the History of Tong down t to the extinction of
the male line of Pembruge and the foundation of the Collegiate
Church by the Widow of the last of that House.

Many temptations there are to descend yet later, — a brilliant
succession of Knights and Nobles who continued to inherit or

m Lichfield Registers.

SOUTH AlSI.fi OF Tl

COftBKL, SOUTH AISLE, TONO.

MONUMENT OF SIR RICHARD VERNON AND WIFE l«jq)W>4 TONG CHURCH.

TONG.

253

possess the Lordship, a Church well known in the present day as a
model of its class, also a series of Monuments such as can be found
in few edifices of equal scale and pretension. 168

To one of these Monuments, the oldest and perhaps the fairest of
the series, I will at least extend my remarks, associated as it is
with the era to which I have already descended, and because some
curiosity exists as to the persons whom it was intended to com-
memorate.

Sir William Dugdale, visiting Tong Church in September 1663,
notices this Monument as follows; —

" Towards the North side of the Church stands a faire Tombe of
Alabaster whereon do lye the figures of a man in armour (partly
male and partly plate armour) and of his wife on his right hand,
and on her chin a Wimpler. Upon the Helm whereon the man
resteth his head is this Crest (upon a Wreath) viz. a Turkish
woman's head with a wreath about her temples ; her haire platted
and hanging below her shoulders, with a tassel at the end of the
platting. —

" This iss ayde to be the monument of Sir Fowke Fembrugge
Knight, sometime Lord of Tonge Castle." 164

This Tradition still exists, and, if it be true, the Monument comes
fairly within our scope as the tomb of Sir Fulk Pembruge, the last
of his line, who died in 1408-9, and of one of his wives.

His Widow was within the next three years active in founding
the Collegiate Structure which we now know as Tong Church.

*• One of these Monuments is embel-
lished by an ornament higher than archi-
tecture or heraldry could supply — a verse
(its epitaph) written by Shakespeare. I
may hardly thus allude to it without
giving it. It is as follows : —

"Not Monumental Stone preserves our

fame,
Nor sky-aspiring Pyramids our name ;
The Memory of him for whom this stands
Shall outlive marble andDefacers' hands ;
When all to Time's consumption shall

be given, *

Stanley, for whom this stands, shall

stand in Heaven."

Sir William Dugdale, in his Visitation
of Shropshire, says positively that this
epitaph was written by Shakespeare.
Probably however it was an early effort

II.

of the Poet' 8 genius; for Sir Thomas
Stanley, to whose memory it was written,
died in December 1576, when Shakespeare
was not yet thirteen years of age.

The opposite, or eastern, end of this
tomb exhibits six verses which I cannot
help thinking to have been in imitation
of the former and by an inferior Poet.
Possibly also they are in praise of Sir
Edward Stanley (son of Sir Thomas), to
whose memory the Monument is in part
devoted, for they speak of one who " lyes
here," that is, was buried beneath. Now
Sir Thomas Stanley is said to have been
buried, not at Tong, but at Walthamstow
(Essex). —

These verses are not worth transcribing.

164 Dugdale 1 * Visitation of Shropshire
at the Heralds* College; Church Notes,
p. 18.

254

TONG-

A strong probability therefore arises that the earliest Monument
in a Church of this Lady's building should be to the memory of
herself and her deceased husband.

Some opinions which I have taken as to the date of this Monu-
ment, and which were grounded on its details of architecture and
costume, are not very positive, but not inconsistent with the idea
that it was Sir Fulk Pembruge's. 165

Thus much for one view of the matter, and now for another. —

Fulk Eytone, Armiger, a member of the family of Ey ton on the
Wildmoors, having apparently been serving in the French wars of
Henry VFs time, directs by his Will that he shall " be intombed by
his Godfather Sir Fouk de Pembrudge in our Lady Chappell of
Tonge." 166

Now the person whose burial-place is thus indicated must neces-
sarily be that Sir Fulk Pembruge who died in 1408-9 ; and as it is
not very probable that the Lady-Chapel of Tong was in the North
Transept of the Church ; 187 so it is unlikely that Sir Fulk Pem-
bruge was buried in that Transept.

But as the relative position of "The Lady-Chapel" was not
invariable, we will strengthen this doubt still further. —

I again quote Dugdale who continues his notice of this Monu-
ment as follows ; —

" On the sides of this Tombe are divers Escocheons whereon
Armes have been antiently depicted : but I suppose it was since the
Vernons became Lords of Tonge Castle by marriage with the heire
female of Pembrugge, for the painting is as followeth."

Dugdale then gives, as beneath, the bearings of twelve shields, to

1M There is always some uncertainty in
judging from these indicia, e.g. all Coun-
ties cannot be supposed to have advanced
in parallels of Architectural fancy : some
tombs were constructed during the lives
of the persons whom they were intended
eventually to commemorate, others again
were built long after their decease. So
too as to the Armour and Dress of monu-
mental Effigies; — an older fashion than
the one in vogue might very possibly be
adopted in some oases, for aged people
cling to the customs of their earlier life,
and would naturally, if directing the
order of their future burial, give instruc-
tions in accordance with Buoh feelings.

And in case of a monument erected to the
memory of one long deceased, it is impos-
sible to say what anachronisms of costume
might not have been adopted.

For these or some similar reasons, I
suppose it comes to pass that those who
should be most adequate to form an opi-
nion as to the date of a given building or
monument will seldom express a very
definite one.

186 Lansdowne MS. 860 A, fo. 870 b.

167 The Lady Chapel in large Churches
was usually at the East, behind the High
Altar. There is an exception at Ely,
where it joins the North Eastern Angle
of the North Transept.

TONG.

255

which I add the names of those families to whom I conceive the
said bearings to have belonged,
i. Blank.
it. Party per pale ; —

Dexter. — Bany of six (Pembruge), empaling, — A Lion

Rampant (Ludlow).
Sinister.— Blank.™
in. Barry of six (Pembruge), empaling Pretty (Vernon).
iv. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon).

v. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon), empaling Barry of Six (Pembruge).
vi. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon).

" I- Barry of six Or and Az (Pembruge).

ix. Barry of six Or and Az (Pembruge), empaling — Az, a bend

lozengy Or (Bermingham).
x. Az a Bend lozengy Or (Bermingham).

* > Barry of six Or and Az (Pembruge).

These coats are not all which the tomb has or once had ; but
some others, still to be recognized, are repetitions of Nos. vi and
xi; others again are wholly defaced and were apparently so in
Dugdale's time.

Now, notwithstanding one or two difficulties in accounting for
each of these insignia, it is clear on the whole that the tomb is
that of a Vernon. If compared also with the annexed Pedigree
it will further appear I think, that it is the tomb of Sir Richard
Vernon, Treasurer of Calais, who died in 1451, and of his wife
Benedicta de Ludlow. 169

This Sir Richard Vernon was the first of his line who inherited
the estates and arms of Pembruge, and who, on one occasion at
least, bore the name of Pembruge also. If he were commonly
called Sir Richard Pembruge (and we do not know to the contrary)
then the Tradition about the Tomb instead of being disproved has
only been explained and corrected.

10 This I take to be the significant
coat of the series. It must be that of Sir
Bichard Vernon, who died in 1461. The
Pembruge Arms arc assigned to him as
Heir of Pembruge. Empaled therewith
are the Arms of his first, but perhaps not
only, wife, Benedicta de Ludlow. He
married, I presume, a second wife, whose

Arms were either not known or else were
omitted.

169 No one, I presume, will undertake
to say that Sir Fulk Pembruge's Widow
emblazoning his tomb after his decease
would add thereto the insignia of his ap-
parent heirs, omitting her own arms (Lin-
gen) and those of his first wife (Trussel).

256 TONG.

Before I leave this Tomb another carious circumstance, in
probable connection therewith, should be told. —

A Tourist visiting Tong Church towards the close of the
eighteenth Century, after mentioning the Monuments, says that he
"noticed one of Alabaster to the memory of a Vernon. The
effigies," he continues, " lie on an altar-tomb and had the remains
of a garland of flowers (then nearly reduced to dust) round the
neck and breast. The Sexton told me that on every Midsummer
day (June 24), a new garland was put on and remained so until
the following, when it was annually renewed. As this is a singular
custom, I could not forbear noticing it, and wish to be informed
what was the origin of it." 17 °

My Brother Antiquary's inquiring spirit is ere this at rest, and,
though the custom which he describes is now disused, others may
care to hear a suggestion as to its origin. —

When Roger la Zouche, between the years 1227 and 1237,
enfeoffed Henry de Hugford in lands at Tong (as before recited)
the only acknowledgment reserved was " a Chaplet of Roses payable
to the Grantor and his Heirs upon the Feast day of the Nativity
of St. John Baptist (June 24), in case he or they should be at Tong ;
if not, then to be put upon the Image of the Blessed Virgin in the
Church of Tonge."

We have seen this quit-rent to have been payable to Fulk de
Fembruge (who died in 1296) among his other receipts in Tong
Manor ; we now, as I think, see it either paid, or commemorated,
six centuries later; no longer indeed appended to the Image of the
Virgin, which was of course removed in the sixteenth Century, but
placed instead on the earliest Monument of the Manorial Lords
which the Church happened to contain.

The Windows of the Collegiate Church of Tong were formerly
embellished with armorial insignia. These deserve notice, some of
them as illustrating the ascertained history and alliances of the
houses of Pembruge and Vernon, others as suggesting further
genealogical truths.

Dugdale, in 1663, observed the following shields in the South
Windows of the Chancel. —

i. Barry of six Or and Az (Pembruge); empaling Barry of six
Or and Az, on a bend Gu, three Roses Arg (Lingen).

170 Gentleman's Magazine, ?ol. 70, p. 934.

TONG.

257

ii. Pembruge.
in. Lingen.

iv. Gu, a Lion rampant Or (Fitz-Alan).
v. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon),
vi. Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon).
vii. Az two Pipes between nine cross-crosslets Or (Pjrpe).
vin. Az a Bend Arg cotized between six Martlets Or (De la Bere).
In the North Windows of the Chancel. —
i. Arg Fretty On, with a bezant on each joint of the frett£
(Trussel) ; — empaling, — Or, a Lion rampant Sa (Ludlow) .
ii. Ludlow, empaling Lingen.

in. Ludlow, empaling, — Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon),
iv. Lingen.
v. Pembruge.

vi. Pembruge empaling Lingen.

vn. Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon) empaling — (blank).
vin. Az a Bend Arg cotized, between six Martlets Or, empaling,
— Gu a Idon rampant Or. 171

Some Church Notes taken about a.d. 1699, show that many of
the above Coats were then remaining, 172 Thus we have, — 1, Pem-
bruge; 2, Lingen;* 3, Pembruge empaling Lingen; 4, Pembruge
empaling Bermingham; 5, Pembruge empaling Trussell; 6, De
la Bere empaling Ludlow; 7, Vernon empaling Pype : —
and also these —

i. Arg Fretty Sa (Vernon) empaling, — Or a Lion rampant Sa

(Ludlow).
ii. Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon), — empaling — (Ludlow) .
in. Ludlow, empaling, Arg Fretty Sa, a Canton Gu (Vernon),
iv. A Lion rampant double-queued, 178 — empaling (Lingen).
v. Arg on a Bend Sa, three Harvest-flies of the first.

W Some Church Notes taken by Fran-
cis Sandford, Rouge Dragon, in 1660,
make it probable that the coat here
empaled was — " Or, a Lion rampant Sa"
Ludlow).

vs Harl. MS. 6848, fo. 44b; Church
Notes by J. Johnson.

171 "Arg, a Lion rampant double-queued
Gu," is a coat of Montfort

END OF ALNODE8TRET7 HUNDRED.

258

TABLE* OF TWO DETACHMENTS OF T]

Domesday
Name.

Chenbritone

Costeford. .
Huchefor. .
Iteshale • .

Burertone
Celmeres .
Cleberie .
Eldone . .
Newentone
Sudberia .

Saxon Owner.
T.R.E.

Aluric .
Elmer .
Uluuin .
Edmer .
Turgot .
Goduin.
Morcar Comes

Azor

Eduin Comes .
Seuuard . . .
Edric . . . .
Azor .....
Wiga ....

Domesday
Tenant in Capite.

Bogerius Comes .

. • Idem ....
. . Idem ....
• • Idem ....

Domesday
Mesne, or next, Tenant

Domesday
Sub-Tenant

FIRST

Boibert Fit* Tetbald

Badulf de Mortemer
Roger de Laci . . .
Botbert Fits Tetbald

. . . Idem ....
■ • • Idem ....
Bogerius de Laci .
Bogerius Comes . .
. . . Idem ....
. . . Idem ....

Badulf de Mortemer .
. . . . Idem ....

Uluuard

Badulf de Mortemer .
.... Idem ....
.... Idem ....

SECOXJ
Helgot ....

Roger

• . .

Alridelege .

Bubintone .

Claverlege .

Nordlege . .

Wrfeld . . .

Hala

TABLE OF PART OF THE DOMESDi

Algar Comes .

Wifare ....

Algar Comes .
. . Idem . . .

Idem

••!

Bogerius Comes . .
Bobertus deStatford

Bogerius Comes . .
. . . Idem . . . .
Hugo de Montgu-

meri

Helgot

PART OF THE DOMESDi

Oluuin ....

Bogerius Comes . .

Roger Venator (of part)

TABLE OF A DETACHMENT OF THE DOMESDA

Quatone • . .
Rameslege . .
Bigge . . . J
Sciplei ....

Outi

Achi

Edric, de Co-
mite Leurico
Alsi

Bogerius Comes . .
. . . Idem ....
. . « Idem ....
. . . Idem ....

Outi

Walter

Badulf (de Mortemer)
.... Idem ....

* For an explanation of the plan on which this and similar Tables are constructed, see
Yol. I., pp. 20, 21.

IMESDAY HUNDRED OF BASCHERCH, SHROPSHIRE

259

Dometday
Features.

HACHMENT.

Silva . .

i ...

• • •

Molendinum. Silva . .
Sflva

Dometday
Hidage.

triCHMENT.

Molendinum

3 hides

1 hide
3 hides
7i hides

14* hides

i hide
5 hides
2* hides
2 hides

i hide
1 hide

Hi hides

Dometday
Reference.

Modern
Hundred.

fo. 256, h. 2

267, a.1
256, b. 1
256, b. 2

257, a. 1
Ibidem
fo. 260, b. 1

257, a. 1
Ibidem
Ibidem

JUNTY* OF STAFFORDSHIRE.

Brimstree

Ibidem

Stottesden

Ibidem

Ibidem .......

Ibidem

Stottesden

Brimstree, Salop (part)
Seisdon, SteJEbrdBh. (part)

Brimstree

Stottesden

Brimstree . .

Modern
Name.

Kemberton.

Cosford.
Higford.
Shiflhall.

Burwarton.
Chelmarsh.
Cleobury North.
Eudon George.
Neenton.
Sidbury.

fPresbiter \

iPratum. Silva. . . J

i Sflva paatilis

f Molendinum. Pra- ">
( turn. Silva . . . )
Molendinum. Silva . .

rPresbiter )

} 3molendina. Piscaria >
(.Pratum. Silva. . . )

hide

hides

fo. 248, a, 1

249, a. 2 f

248, a.1
Ibidem

fo. 248, b. 1

Alveley.

> Bobbington.

Claverley.
Norley Regis.

Worfield.

tl XDRED OP CLENT, WORCESTERSHIRE.

SEoolesia cum 2 pres-
bitris
Salina in Wich. . .
DomiiB in Wireoestre

10 hides

fo. 176, a. 1

Hales Owen.

irNDRED OF STANLEI, WARWICKSHIRE.

( Silva. Molendinum. ")

iPratum y

Silva

I Quarentena Quereuum .

hides

hide

hides

hide

fo. 230, a. 2
Ibidem
Ibidem
Ibidem

Stottesden
Stottesden
Ibidem . .
Brimt&ree .

Quat.
Bomeeley.
Budge.
Shipley.

• Only one of these Manors (Bobbington) has its Staffordshire Hundred assigned in Dometday.
That Hundred is Saisdone, in which also will have been situated Alveley, Claverley, Norley and
Worfield. But their Hundred is not expressed and possibly their statu* was extra-kundredal.

260
SHROPSHIRE MANORS AND DISTRICTS,

ALREADY ISOLATED IN DOMESDAY, OB SUBSEQUENTLY DETACHED

FROM OTHER COUNTIES.

Having now completed our Survey of the ancient Hundred of
Alnodestreu, we proceed to classify those various detachments of
other Counties and Hundreds which, at the time of Domesday, lay
intermixed with, or adjacent to, the Manors of Alnodestreu, or else
have been since annexed to those Hundreds (Brimstree and
Stottesden) which mainly represent Alnodestreu.

The foregoing Table presents this series in a succinct form, and,
when compared with the Map already given, will indicate the pro-
posed plan of our further investigations.

It is not however my intention to give any detailed account
of Hales Owen. That Manor is no longer a part of Shropshire,
and its anomalous position has already procured for it the notice
of the Historian of its proper County, Worcestershire. 1 Its
former connection with Shropshire demands however this passing
mention, and I insert its name in the annexed Table not merely for
the sake of completeness, but because it will serve to illustrate
some remarks which I have to offer with respect to these eccentric
divisions of territory, 2 — their causes, meaning, and objects.

Dugdale, speaking of a part of Worcestershire, which in his time
was isolated in Warwickshire, says as follows ; s —

" Before I go farther, it will not be amisse to give some probable
reason (for apparent proof I have none) why this, and such parcells
so encompassed (as is frequently seen) became thus severed from
the Counties wherein they lye ; which, in short, I conceive to be
no more than this ; viz. that they being originally (I mean before
the division of Counties was absolutely made and settled) belonging
to some great person, whose residence was far distant ; and in the
old assessments rated there, continued afterwards so taxt; and
for that respect have been, and are still reputed part of those
Shires. And that this was the first ground thereof, will be evident
enough from the instances that might be given therein, through
sundry parts of this Realm, as in this particular here before us ; "
Dugdale then proceeds to show how certain Worcestershire Manors,
surrounded in his time by Warwickshire, had anciently belonged
to the Church of Worcester, or to the Monastery of Pershore, and

1 Nash, vol. i, pp. 608, 535.

2 Supra, Vol. I, p. 17.

8 History of Warwickshire (Thomas's
Edition), voL i, p. 628.

MANORS AND DI8TRICT8. 261

how they had continued to be parts of Worcestershire, notwith-
standing all subsequent territorial arrangements.

Mr. Blakeway, commenting upon and assenting to this doctrine
of Dugdale's, quotes a passage of Ordericus to show how it was " in
the power of any great man to throw his estates into whatever
district he pleased." 4 —

The transfer, thus alluded to by Mr. Blakeway, belongs to the
provincial history of Normandy, early in the eleventh century, and
only exhibits instances where certain Nobles submitted their terri-
tories to a specific and comparatively distant Episcopal supervision,
not to any secular jurisdiction. 6 Their object was clearly to escape
all imperative control whatever. Nevertheless the case is well cited
by Mr. Blakeway ; for an analogy of motives is observable in all
such transfers whether ecclesiastical or temporal.

We may now consult the annexed Table to see how far these
observations of Dugdale and Blakeway bear upon our own immediate
subject. —

It will be observed that four names are prominently connected
with the Domesday Manors therein enumerated. They are Earl
Roger, Ralph de Mortimer, Roger de Lacy, and Robert Fitz Tetbald.

Now each of these was " a great man," and doubtless the peculiar
status which then or afterwards was obtained for their respective
Manors had its object. They either had in view the concentration
of their own jurisdictions, or else an escape from all superior or
coordinate interference.

Thus I presume that Mortimer, Lacy, and Fitz Tetbald procured
their Manors to be registered in the Domesday Hundred of
Baschurch ; not because they themselves had any other and para-
mount interest in that Hundred, but to escape being classified with
those ordinary Tenants of Earl Roger, who owed suit and service to
Alnodestreu. Thus too Roger de Lacy, being Tenant in capite,
and not Earl Roger's Tenant at Cleobury-North, will have had a still
stronger motive for keeping that Manor in an isolated condition.

These, however, are instances where boundaries of Hundreds
only were affected. As regards the limits of Counties the cases
under notice present a totally distinct feature. Four Manors in
Staffordshire and one in Worcestershire, which had been originally
in those Counties, and which Earl Roger and Hugh his Son held
almost wholly in demesne, retained at Domesday their ancient status.

4 Stotteedon Parochial History, Til. * Liber, iii, p. 464, A, B.

Farlow.

II. 34

262 COS FORD.

The obvious convenience of attaching them to Shropshire was not
yet recognized. It came however to be seen, and probably soon
after Domesday. The change then, in this instance, was not based
upon prescription or the authority of Domesday, but was brought
about afterwards ; its object being evidently to give integrity to the
Palatine Earldom of Shropshire.

The last and most curious case is that of the four Domesday
Manors which, being locally in Staffordshire at that period, are yet
exhibited in Warwickshire. These were not held by Earl Roger in
demesne, but by his Tenants, one of whom I identify with Ralph
de Mortimer.

It is again clear that the said Tenants were interested in dis-
uniting these Manors, not only from the Manors of Earl Roger's
demesne, wherewith they were intermixed, but also from the yet
more alien Staffordshire Hundred of Saisdone: they therefore
procured them to be recognized as in Warwickshire. A combina-
tion with any nearer jurisdiction or district would have been to the
disadvantage of these Manors. They would in fact have constituted
an hundredal minority. Summarily then there were cases where
the isolation of a Manor added to its importance ; there were also
cases, where a Manor, already isolated, might profit by being
annexed to some distant jurisdiction where its Lord was already
paramount.

Cost or**

The etymology of this name is more traceable in the older ways
of spelling it than in that which is now current. — Gojijtej- Fojib
(Gorstes-ford) or " The ford of gorse " is a term relevant both to the
shallow stream, which flows hereby, and to the nature of the soil,
which in this quarter is favourable to the shrub thus indicated.

Domesday says that " Radulfus (de Mortemer) holds Costeford (of
Earl Roger). Turgot held it (in time of King Edward) and was a
free man. Here is one hide geldable. There is (arable) land suf-
ficient for in ox-teams. In demesne there is one (such team). In
time of King Edward it was worth xw. (per annum) ; afterwards it
was waste; now it is worth vs." (per annum). 1

This small Manor introduces to our notice one of the greatest
names which occur in the Shropshire Domesday. The connection
of Mortimer with Cosford was however very transient, and we must

1 Domesday, fo. 257 a, 1.

COS FORD. 263

postpone our account of that extraordinary race till we reach some
locality more associated with its fortunes. A probable reason
should meanwhile be given why this and some other Manors, held
by Mortimer at Domesday, appear at no subsequent period in the
hands of his Successors. —

I have already suggested (under Byton) how an outlying Manor
might be a mere incumbrance to a great Fief, and so be surrendered
by its Tenant as a matter of policy. I have further imagined that
some involuntary loss may have befallen those who shared in the
rebellion of 1088. Either consideration will apply to Ralph de Mor-
timer's tenure of Cosford; for it was isolated from all his other
possessions, and he shared prominently in that rebellion. In short,
the very name of Mortimer implies turbulent restlessness and never-
sated ambition, alternate honour and disgrace, the greatest ascend-
ancy succeeded by the most utter ruin.

Besides this case of Cosford, I shall hereafter notice other early
dismemberments of Mortimer's Fief, and one which must have
happened within thirteen years of Domesday, — that is before the
death of Earl Hugh de Montgomery in 1098.

Cosford, after its separation from the Fief of Mortimer, seems to
have been annexed to that Tenure in capite which the Pichfords
enjoyed in the neighbouring Manor of Albrighton.

Richard de Pichford, before the year 1176 (when he was de-
ceased), granted to Buildwas Abbey " all the service of Richard
Crasset, of the land of Cbspelford."

Such is the Becord of a Charter of King Richard I, dated at
Winchester, October 22, 1189. 9 But another Charter of the same
King, dated in the first instance on October 20, 1189, and after-
wards renewed at Roche- Andely on October 24, 1198, speaks of
the same or other land acquired by the Monks at Cosford in
a different way. This Charter confirms them in possession of " the
land of Cospelford which they had in exchange by gift of William
Crasset." 8

Of William Crasset, thus ascertained to have had an interest in
Cosford, we meet with other mention, A deed dated in 1176, and
which is a grant of William son of John Bagoth (of Blymhill) to
Buildwas, is attested by William Crasset. 4 So also is the somewhat

' MbnatUeon, y, 869 ; xvi

* Blakeway's MSS.,from W. Mytton's
Collections. King Richard thus renewed
many of hi* Charters. The reason was,
that, during hiscaptmty, the Great Seal

had been lost. Its impression was there-
fore no longer a Guarantee of a genuine
Document.

4 This Deed which, though it oonoerns
land in another County, must again be

264

COS FORD.

later Charter of Walter de Hemes to the same Abbey, which I have
quoted under Hatton.

Again, we have seen Henry Crasset standing last witness, about
1248, to Robert Traynel's grant of Hatton to Buildwas, and finally
we have William Crasset in 1272, suing the Abbot of Buildwas
for his Manor of Hatton, which appears at that time to have
comprehended two Townships, one called Hatton Traynel, the
other Hatton Crasset. 5

Thus from the time of Turgod the Saxon, who held, as I have
already concluded, both Cosford and Hatton before the Conquest,
two Centuries had elapsed; — two centuries during which nearly
every notice of one Manor is either directly or indirectly associated
with the other. Now at length both belonged to Buildwas
Abbey, whose specific interests in Cospeforde were thus estimated
in 1291, viz. two carucates of land worth annually (at 10*. each
carucate) £1. 0*. Orf.—

Annual profits of Stock £6. 4*. 6rf. —

Two Mills annually worth £1. 0s. 0d*

In 1341, as we have seen under Albrighton, the- Abbot of
Buildwas is said to hold three carucates in Albrighton Parish.
I know however of nothing which he had therein except Cosford ;
but these estimates are very often thus irreconcilable, and can be
taken to prove little more than that the returns and assessments
of that period were either made very carelessly or very dishonestly.

In 1535-6, Stephen, last Abbot of BuiNwas declared his Bents
derived from " Goflbrd " to be £3. per annum, from Abrighton
' 2s. 44., whilst he paid the Prior of Wenlock 12s. per annum for
Common near Gofforde, and 10*. to the Vicar of Albrighton for ad-
ministering the Sacraments in Gofforde. 7

The Ministers' -Account*, a year later, give £3. as the ferm of
Gosforde Grange, and 44. as the ground-rent of a Mill there. 8

quoted by me, is as follows i — " I, William,
son of John Bagoth, have conceded to the
Abbot and Convent of Buldewas the whole
Convention which was made between them
and my Father about the land which is
beyond the Rivulet, from the boundaries
of Westune to the boundaries of Brootune.
And to observe all these things firmly for
the (specified) term we have made affidavit
in the County Court at Staffort, viz. I, my
Mother, and my Brothers, Roger, John,
and Thomas. And of all these things are

witnesses Hervey de Stratton, Sheriff (he
was Sheriff of Staffordshire from 1166 to
1184), Geoffrey Salvage, Adam de Wrotea-
leg, Nicholas de Mutton, Ralph le Belcher,
Alan de Bildcwas, William Crasset This
last Convention was made in the year from
the Lord's Incarnation 1176." (Blakeway
MSS. from Mytton's Collections.)

6 Supra, page 173.

8 Pope Nicholas Taxation, p. 260.

7 Valor Ecclesiastic™, iii, 191, 192.

8 Monasticon, v, 361, No. xxv.

265

ftesftaie, Ktisall, or &\MmV

Domesday notices this place as follows, —

" Rotbert son of Tetbald holds Iteshale of Earl Roger. Earl
Morcar held it. Here are 7\ hides geldable. In demesne are
ix ox-teams ; and (there are) xxvi Serfs, and xxxvn villains, and
in boors, and in radmans, with xxvn ox-teams. Here is a wood
which will fatten three hundred swine. In time of King Edward
(the Manor) was worth £15. (per annum) ; afterwards it was worth
6s. Now it pays £15." *

It is not always that Domesday records the value of a Manor at
the period of its transfer from a Saxon to a Norman Lord. In the
case before us we have however a statement on the point; and
most significant that statement is.—

Iteshale, once an estate of Morcar Earl of Mercia, and ordinarily
a Manor of d£15. annual value, was worth no more than 6s. per
annum, at the said period of transfer.

The rebellion and fate of Earl Morcar in 1071, have already
been alluded to. We have here another feature of the same
tragedy, viz. the almost utter desolation which visited his lands
and dependants.

To this, then recent, state of disorganization, I must attribute
the silence of Domesday as to a Collegiate Church which doubtless
had existed here in Saxon times, 8 and which will have been
re-established by the Norman Lord very soon after the period of
that Survey.

1 It is probable that the names Idaall
and Shiifhal originally r e p r e s e nted two
districts lying respectively West and East
of the small stream which divides the
Town. Each however has, in its torn,
served to describe the whole place. The
name Schuifenhale, as that of the vill,
first occurs to me in a deed of 1320 j bat
deeds of that and four following centuries
speak of the "Lordship, Manor, Fee, and
Church of Idsall," sometimes adding
"alia* Shiifiiall," sometimes not. Now,
at length, the latter name is the only one

II.

recognized by common usage,

I take both to be Saxon words t — Iber-
heal is the Hall of Ide, Soeafan-heal the
HallofSceafa.

1 Domesday, fo. 266 b, 2.

8 Vide History of Shrewsbury t ii, p. 14,
note 1, where my idea that this Church
was originally Saxon seems to be coun-
tenanced.

The statement that, (in the same note)
"traces of the interest of Shrewsbury
Abbey are wanting in regard to Idsall
Church,*' is however premature.

34 §

266

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

We must now speak of Robert Fits Tetbald, who receiving this
dilapidated Manor and Church from Earl Roger, seems to have
restored both.

He had in 1085 three other Shropshire Manors, viz. Kemberton,
Woodcote, and one whose extent was very small, and whose name
is unrecorded.

He is mentioned in authentic documents not only as a witness
to part of Earl Roger's endowment of Shrewsbury Abbey, but
the Earl himself names him as one of his Coadjutors in that pious
work. " Robert son of Theobald," says the Earl, " gave them
(the Monks) the Church of Iteshale with the tithes of the same
vill."*

This grant seems to have been increased, or more fully specified,
during the time of Earl Hugh or Earl Robert, who are said to
have confirmed the grant which " Robert Fitz Thetbalt, Vicecomes,
made of the tithe of Cambriston (Kemberton), and the Church
of Ithessal with all things pertaining thereto, and with the tithe of
the same Manor, viz. in monies, and in animals, and in crops." '

Rothbert Vicecomes, or Robert Fitz Theobald next appears, both
as a witness of the genuine, and an alleged witness of the more
suspected Charters of Earl Hugh to Shrewsbury Abbey. There is,
I think, no probability that his jurisdiction as Vicecomes was in
Shropshire. — Of that however presently.

He does not appear to have been involved in the fall of Earl
Robert de Belesme, for Richard Bishop of London (consecrated
July 1108) is said to have attested a grant, whereby Robert
Vicecomes, son of Tedbald, not only repeated his donations to
Shrewsbury, but directed that, as fast as the Clerks (that is
Canons) who were then in possession of the Church of Ithesal
should die off, the Church should come into the demesne of
St. Peter. 6

Thus far of Robert Fitz Tetbald, as connected with Shropshire.
I must now speak of him in a much more important relation,
hitherto unnoticed by local Historians.

The Domesday Survey of Sussex presents Robert Fitz Tetbald

4 Salop Chartulary, No. 2.

6 Salop Chartulary, No. 35.

6 Monasticon, iii, 518. "Et quia
eandem ecelesiam tunc clerioi habebant,
preoepit iedem Bobertus, ut cum illi
morerentur, ecclesia in dominio Sancti
Petri veuiret." This was an exact imi-

tation of Earl Roger' 8 dealing with regard
to Morville. The Normans first restored
the Saxon Collegiate Churches, and then
disposed of them in such a way as that
they should eventually lose their Collegiate
character.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 267

as holding under Earl Roger two burgages (hagas) at Arundel,
and being entitled to levy his own tolls on strangers. The same
Robert Fitz Tetbald is described as holding the large Sussex
Manor of Treverde (Trayford) under the Earl. 7 The same person,
easily recognized under his Christian name Robertus, further
appears as Tenant of more than thirty Manors in the Honour of
Arundel.

Being thus by far the greatest Feoffee in Roger de Montgomery's
Earldom of Arundel and Chichester, it was doubtless in this
relation, that Robert Fitz Tetbald acquired his title of Vicecomes,
though his Shrievalty is nowhere noticed in Domesday, and
perhaps had not then commenced.

It will answer a present as well as a future purpose, if I give
a summary of Robert Fitz Tetbald's Sussex Fief. — It included
Peteorde (Petworth), Cochinges (Cocking), Heriedeham (Hardham),
and a number of Manors which constituted that integral portion
of the Earldom of Arundel known afterwards as the Honour of
Petworth. It also included Poleberge (Pulborough) and Garinges
(Goring). 8

I have already cited evidence to show that Robert Fitz Tetbald
did not share the fall of Earl Robert de Belesme in 1102. His
Fief both in Sussex and Shropshire will accordingly have been held
after that event under King Henry I. It is however clear that
during that Monarch's life the whole lapsed to the Crown, but
whether by surrender, forfeiture, or failure of heirs, I cannot
determine.

The Honours of both Earl and Yicomte were thus at the
redisposal of King Henry. The estates of Robert Fitz Tetbald do
not however appear to have been granted to any Subject during
that Monarch's reign ; for the Feodary of the Honour of Arundel
(which I have already determined to belong to the period between
1130 and 1135) enumerates the following Tenures and Fees
without naming any Tenant. " Pettewrtha — 22\ fees, Garinges —
11 fees, Poleberga— 3 fees, and Trieferda — 1 fee." •

Thus at the close of Henry Ts reign, was the Fief of Robert
Fitz Tetbald in the King's hand. I shall hereafter have to trace
its subsequent history in connection with Shropshire names and
estates.

At the time I speak of (1130-5), another large portion of the

7 Domesday, fo. 23 a, 1. I ' Liber Niger, i, 64, 65.

8 Domesday, fo. 23-26. I

268

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

Earldom of Arundel, estimated at eight Knights'-Fees, had been
placed at the disposal of the King. This he had granted to Alan
de Dunstanvill, who was then holding the same. He had also, if I
mistake not, granted to the same Alan the Shropshire Manor of
IdsaU.

And here, in attempting to declare who this Alan de Dunstan-
vill was, I must undertake the history of a great Feudal Barony,
the early part of which was left unexplored by Dugdale, and has
only been misrepresented by others.

BARONY OF DUNSTANVILL.

In the Wiltshire Domesday, one Humphrey de Lisle (Humfridus
de Insula) is recorded as holding of the King a Fief of not less than
twenty-seven Manors. Of these it will suffice for our present
purpose to name the following, viz. Broctone, Contone, Sterte,
Cumbrewelle, Wili, Colerne, Poltone, Bedestone, Come, and
Wintreburne. 10

Of this Humphrey de Lisle, I can say no more than that
in January 1091, he was in attendance at Hastings on King
William II, then about to embark for Normandy. 11

He appears to have left a daughter and sole heiress, variously
called Adelina de Insula, and Adeliza de Dunstanville, for it was
the custom of great heiresses to retain their paternal names after
marriage.

The husband of Adelina de Insula was Reginald de Dunstanville,
whose marriage of so wealthy an heiress bespeaks some Court-
influence, but of whose origin I can form no conjecture. The
name is associated with the liaisons of Royalty, but certain it is
that this Reginald was deceased before his great namesake the
illegitimate son of Henry I, and afterwards Earl of Cornwall, had
passed the age of boyhood.

This Reginald, under the name of Rainald de Dunestanesvill,
gave to the Priory of Lewes the Church of Winterburne in
Wiltshire with all that appertained thereto. 13 Now as Winterburne
was among the Domesday possessions of Humphrey de Lisle, so
will the various confirmations which Lewes Priory had of this
Church enable us to judge of his succession.

10 Domesday, fos. 70, b 2, and 71, a 1.

11 Monasticon, viii, 1294 ; ii.

12 Monasticon, t, 14, No. yi. A pen-

sion from the Church of Wynterborne
Basset (Wilts) was payable to Lewes
Priory at the Dissolution.

TD8ALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

269

Adelina de Insula, wife of Reginald de Dunstanvill survived
him. In her widowhood and yet previous to the year 1124, she
granted to Tewkesbury Abbey the land of Poltone for the soul of
the said Reginald her husband. 18 She appears also on the Wilt-
shire Pipe-Roll of 1130, under the name of Adeliza de Dunestanvill
as Surety for one who owed ten merks to the Crown. 14 She
further seems, by a document which I shall quote presently, to
have made some grant or confirmation of Winterbourne Church to
Lewes Priory.

In 1130, there was one Reginald de Dunstanvill who had a very
large property in Wiltshire, whose Sister Gundred had also lands
there, and who both seem to have been high in Royal favour. 15 If
this Reginald was in the succession of Humphrey de Lisle, I can
say nothing further of him. If, as, notwithstanding some evidence
to the contrary, I must believe, he was identical with Reginald
Fitz Roy, then I have no present concern with him.

In the succession of Adeliza de Dunstanvill came one Walter
de Pinkney. Whether he were her heir (the son of a former
husband), or whether his claims superseded those of others in
consequence of his siding with the dominant political party of his
day, I can hardly determine. The following evidences are all I
have to offer on the point. —

In or about the year 1145, this Walter, having been left by
Stephen as Governor of the garrison of Malmesbury, was dis- r
tinguished for his fidelity to the Usurper, and his readiness in

a Moncuticon, ii, pp. 66, 86. Polton,
near Marlborough (Wilts), continued to
belong to Tewkesbury till the Dissolution.
It was a Domesday Manor of Humphrey
de Insula. Adelina's grant thereof was
confirmed by Henry I, apparently when
at East-Bourne (Sussex), and certainly
before 1124.

14 Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, p. 21.

15 He is excused £7. 1*. of the Danegeld
assessed on Wiltshire. His liability to
such a sum indicates a large property.
Several Hundreds in the same County
were also under amercement, for murders
committed within their limits ; — but a
sum of 40*. chargeable on Reginald, and
one of 24*. chargeable on his Sister Gun-
dred, in that respect, had been excused
by Royal favour. Similarly 24*. of the

11.

Danegeld assessed on the County of
Surrey had been excused to Reginald
de Dunestanvill (Rot. Pip. 81 Hen. I,
pp. 22, 51). The doubt about this Regi-
nald being Reginald Fitz Roy arises thus:
— William of Jumieges, writing apparently
between the years 1135 and 1140, speaks
of Reginald Fitz Roy as " adhuc juvenis
et sine casamento" (still a youth and
without territorial provision). Never-
theless Reginald Fitz Roy was fighting
for the cause of the Empress, in Coutanoe,
in 1138 ; and there are other reasons for
thinking that Henry Fs illegitimate chil-
dren were all born at an earlier period than
the Monk of Jumieges* account would
imply (Vide, — Willelmus Gemmeticentis,
p. 306; and Ordericus, p. 915; — inter
Normannorum Scriptores).

270

IDSALL, OR SHIPFNAL.

the field. Falling however into the hands of William Peverel de
Dover, an equally zealous supporter of Matilda, he was given up
to the latter. Neither persuasions nor threats would induce the
captive to cooperate in a scheme which the Empress entertained of
obtaining possession of Malmesbury-Castle through his agency.
He would not and could not further her design, for Stephen,
hearing of his captivity, came to Malmesbury himself and took
measures for its future defence. The Empress, cruel in her dis-
appointment, consigned Walter de Pinkney to chains and a
dungeon. 16

It must have been two years afterwards, that Walter de Pinkney
(Pinchenei) escaping from prison flew again to arms. Backed by
the assistance of Roger Earl of Hereford and an efficient band of
soldiers, he got possession of Christ-Church (Hants), a Castle then
garrisoned for the Empress. His conduct was now marked by
violent extortion, sacrilege, and the most wanton cruelties. A
combination of the Citizens of Christ-Church and the neighbouring
tenantry resolved to put an end to his barbarities. Passing, as
it seems, from the Castle to the Church, he and his suit were
waylaid by the conspirators, who in the first instance addressed
him as suppliants deprecating his extortionate conduct. The
answer they received was a defiant look, and a threat of yet
harsher treatment. The look and the threat were the last; — in
another moment Walter de Pinkney fell lifeless under the stroke
of a battle-axe, his followers were put to the sword, and the Castle
of Christ-Church surrendered to the Conspirators. 17

This Walter had in his life-time, and probably before his
imprisonment, expedited a Charter to Lewes Priory of which the
following is a translation.

To the Venerable Lord Prior of Lewes, &c., Walter de Pencheni,
greeting. Know ye that I give ye, the Church of Wintreburne,
which my Mother 18 (materna mea) Adeliza gave ye ; — I give it
after the decease of the Clerk my kinsman (clerici, parentis mei)
to whom I granted it, and as long as that Clerk shall live, he
shall hold it of ye, and he shall pay ye every year, whilst the War
shall last, 10s., and when God shall have given peace, he shall pay
one merk of silver. But after his decease, ye shall have it wholly

16 'V Oesta Regis Stephani, pp. Ill,
112, 132, 133.

18 In translating materna mea as if it
were simply mater I follow the fabricator

of the Lewes Chartulary, who thus heads
the deed, — " Carta Walteri de Pencheni
de confirmacione ecclesie de Winterhurne
quam Adeliza mater sua dedit."

IDSALL, OB SHIFFNAL.

271

and freely (solidam et quietam), — Hugo de Cumbrevilla and his
two Brothers Roger and Reinald de Insula being witnesses; —
This (I do) that I may partake in all the benefits of your Church. 19

With this curious and not uninstructive document, I close my
notice of Walter de Pinkney, and pass to those who were with less
doubt the eventual heirs, and, as I think, the sons of Adeliza de
Lisle and Reginald de Dunstanvill,

These were the two Brothers Robert and Alan de Dunstanvill,
the former of whom, dying in course of time without issue, left his
estates to the children of his younger Brother. The latter, Alan,
having in the first instance no paternal inheritance, seems to have
obtained certain grants in Sussex and Shropshire, which I have
already ascribed to the favour of Henry I.

I will first speak of Robert de Dunstanvill, and endeavour to
show by his attestation of various Charters how true he was to the
cause of the Empress and her Son Henry.

On July 25, 1141, it must be he, who as Robert Pitz Reginald
witnessed that famous Charter whereby the Empress, grateful
for a temporary success, created Milo de Gloucester Earl of
Hereford. 20 This Charter passed at Oxford, as did two others
nearly contemporary, one to Geoffrey Earl of Essex, and one to
St. Benet's of Hulm (Norfolk). The first of these is attested by
Robert Fitz Reginald, the other by Robert Pitz Reg : probably the
same person. 81

About the same time, but at Devizes (Wiltshire), and as Robert
de Dunstanvill, he attests two Charters which the Empress ex-
pedited in favour of Shrewsbury Abbey, 2 * Another Charter of the
Empress dated at Devizes, and granting to the Monks of Radmore
(Staffordshire) has the same attestation. 88

In 1153, he attests a Charter which Henry, as yet only Duke
of Normandy and Earl of Anjou, granted to Bristol Abbey : u
but on that Prince's accession to the throne, he appears constantly
at Court both in England and Normandy, at the siege of Brug
also in 1155, and attesting charters which passed then and after-
wards to the Shropshire Houses of Shrewsbury and Haughmond,
and to the Flintshire Abbey of Basingwerc.

In 1156 (2 Hen. II), he stands exempted, by Writ Royal, from

u Lewes Chartulary (Cotton. Vespas.
P, xr), foL 169 b.
10 Selden's Titles of Honour, p. 637.
n Dugdates Baronage, i, 201 • Mono*

tieon, iii, 87, No. xiii.
2 Salop Chartulary, Nob. 40, 60.
w Monasticon, v, 446, No. i
14 Ibidem, vi, 366 ; iii.

272

IDSALL, OB SHIFFNAL.

the quotq, of Danegeld assessed upon him in Wiltshire, Hampshire,
Dorsetshire and Surrey, also from his share of the Donum of the
last two Counties.

In this same fiscal year, he had had a grant from the King
of the Royal Manor and Hundred of Heytesbury (Wiltshire),
reputed to pay a blanch ferm of £40. per annum to the Exchequer. 36

The Sheriff of Wiltshire, till September 1167, annually deducted
that sum from his own debts to the Crown, alleging Robert de
Dunstanvill as the recipient thereof, in the usual form.

But in September 1168, Robert de Dunstanvill being dead, his
heir Walter de Dunstanvill is similarly entered as entitled to the
Manor. 26 Of him however presently. —

It should here be noted that Robert de Dunstanvill's interest in
Surrey arose by purchase. He gave for Shalefeld (Shalford) and
Aldeford 100 merks and n greyhounds to Robert de Watevill,
a great Feoffee in the Honour of Clare. Hence, in 1165, Robert
de Dunstanvill is returned as holding i Knights- Fee in Surrey,
of that Honour. 27

I must now speak of his works of piety. Being Guardian I
suppose of his Nephew Alan, he gave to Lewes Priory the Church
of Bercham (Sussex), of the Fee of said Alan, a grant which the
latter afterwards increased by giving an annual rent of 20*. He
(Robert) also gave to the same Cluniac House the Chapel of
Gretham. 28 Lastly, he gave to the Priory of Farleigh (Wilts), a
Cell of Lewes, the land of Cutiford, a grant which, after his death,
was confirmed by his Nephews.

He died, as 1 have said, about 1168, without issue; but before
we proceed to his Successors, we should speak of Alan de Dun-
stanvill his younger Brother, who died long before him. This

35 Rot Pip. 2, 3 & 4 Hen. II, pp. 57,
78. 116. " In terris datis.— Et Roberto
deDunstanvilla,xl, li, bl, in Hehtredebiria
cum hundredo."

When the King granted away a
Manor together with the Hundred, or
with the issues of such Pleas within the
Manor as were of the jurisdiction of the
Hundred-Court, the land was said to be
given " blanch " (blanca) ; and when, on
the contrary, the King retained the Sim-
dredal jurisdiction, and simply gave the
land, it was said to be given " by tale "
(numero). These terms came into use

because it was currently estimated that
the values of a Manor with and without
Hundredal Jurisdiction were as the values
of blanch (». e. refined) money and com-
mon money (t. e . money counted by the
piece, without reference to its purity).

(See Stapletoris Eotuli Normannia,
i, xv).

28 Rot. Pip. passim, sub annis.

V Liber Niger, i, 294.

28 MonasHcon, v, 14 ; iii ; where the
grant is confused with, but must be un-
derstood as distinct from, another by
Roger de Caisneto.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

273

Alan seems to have held 8 Knights'-Fees in the Honour of Arundel,
by favour of King Henry I, and before 1135. Though thereby
questioning a high authority, I hesitate not to say that he was
also Lord of Idsall, which he probably acquired by a similar
patronage.

In July 1141, he attests at Oxford a Charter which the Empress
granted to Haughmond Abbey, his fellow-witnesses being several
of them connected with Shropshire. 29

He granted to Wombridge Priory half a ferdendel (or virgate) of
land, which Eilric held in Leies (afterwards Prior's Lee), with all
the children of the said Eilric. 80 Lee was then a member of
Idsall, of which Manor Alan de Dunstanvill is thus proved to
have been Lord. This grant, as well as a further one of nine
acres in Leia, passed before 1156, and both were confirmed by a
Bull of Pope Urban in 1187, as the grants of Alan de DonstanviU. 31
Either in conjunction with his wife, or for the weal of her soul, this
Alan granted to Lewes Priory the land of Netimbre (Newtimber,
Co. Sussex), and this Charter was confirmed, during the reign of
Stephen, by William de Albini Earl of Arundel, of whose Honour
the said land was held. 82

I can say nothing more of this Alan de Dunstanvill than that in
1156 he was deceased. He left two Sons at least, — Walter and
Alan, the latter probably under age. He had also a daughter Alice,
who married Thomas Basset.

Of Walter de Dunstanvill, eldest son and heir of Alan, we have
innumerable notices. He first occurs at Michaelmas 1156, as
having been excused, by writ of Henry II, his quota of the Dane-

» Harl. MSS. 2188, fo. 123. The
other witnesses axe David King of Scots,
R (Bobert) Bishop of London, A (Alex-
ander) Bishop of Lincoln, W (William
Fitz Gilbert) the Chancellor, R (Richard)
de Belmes Archdeacon, Bainald Earl of
Cornwall, William Fitz Alan and W (Wal-
ter) his Brother.

w • 8l Wombridge Chartulary, TU. Lega
Priori*, No. xiv, and Appendix, No. iiij.
The former is a confirmation by Walter
de Dunstanvill I, son and heir of
Alan.

* Lewes Chartulary, fo. 126 dorso.
This Confirmation purports to be that of
William Earl of Lincoln, but is addressed

to his Barons and men of the Honour of
Arundel. —

The mistake of the transcriber is ob-
vious. Dugdale, taking extracts from this
very Chartulary, as I think, writes the
Grantor as William Earl of Arundel
without note or comment (Ashmol. MSS.
vol. 89, fo. 62). The witnesses of the
Earl's Charter are Hugh, Prior oiNeuham,
Roger and Hermann Chaplains, Ralph
Fitz Savaric (deceased 1157), Geoffrey de
Tresgoz, Amaury de Bellafago, William
de Dunstanvill and Walter his Brother,
Peter Alan's Dapifer, Harold Priest of
Burcham and Robert his Brother, and
Helias Nephew of Ralph Fits Savaric.

274 IDSALL, OB SHIFFNAL.

geld assessed on the County of Sussex. The sum thus excused
was £3. Again, in 1158, he is excused 14*. 6rf., his share of the
donurn of the same County.

In 1156, he had also been assessed £1. 6s. 3d. for the Danegeld
of Shropshire, which debt, being left in arrear, was excused by the
King in 1157. In 1158, the King further excused him a sum of
16*., his proportion of the donum of Shropshire. 84

In 1162, when the Danegeld was again levied, Walter de Dun-
stanvill was assessed at and excused 27s. 6d. in Shropshire, and
58*. in Sussex. 86

In 1165, he is returned as holding one fee of old feoffment under
Adam de Port, of Herefordshire. 86 I cannot identify this Pee. His
Sussex Tenure of eight Pees in the Honour of Arundel was returned
by the Earl under name of Alan de Dunstanvill (Walter's Father),
— the Earl, as I have before explained, quoting a Feodary taken
thirty years previously. Walter himself makes no return of his
Shropshire Tenure in capite.

In 1167, the Demesne of Walter Dunstanvill paid a fine of one
merk, inflicted by Alan de Nevill, who had been holding Pleas of
the Forest in Shropshire. 87

In 1168, it appears that having been assessed eight merks (on
eight Knights'-Fees held of the Honour of Arundel) to the Aid for
marriage of the King's daughter, he had refused to pay more than
five merks, alleging that the other three merks were in excess of the
just demand. 38 In other words he asserted his tenure under the
Earl of Arundel, to be by service of five, not eight Knights'-Fees.
At or about this time, he became the heir of his Uncle Robert,
succeeding thereby to Heytesbury, and other estates in Wiltshire,
Surrey, and elsewhere. He is accordingly entered among the
Wiltshire Grantees of the Crown as having the Manor and
Hundred of Heytesbury, of £40. annual value. This entry con-
tinues on the Wiltshire Pipe-Roll till Michaelmas 1170, inclusive.
It is then suspended altogether for two-and-a-half years, i. e. till

■ Pot. Pip. 2, 8 & 4 Hen. II, pp. 61,
182.

* Ibidem, pp. 43, 89, 170.

35 Sot. Pip. 8 Hen. II, Salop and Sussex.

36 Liber Niger, i, 151.

* Pot. Pip. 18 Hen. II, Salop.
88 Madox Exchequer, 405, k; Liber

Ruber, fo. xlix. These 3 merks were still only,inBergham. (Testa deNevUl f yp.222,

quently disappears from the Bolls without
any appearance of its erer haying been
liquidated. —

In fact Dunstanrill gained his point ;
for a Feodary of the Honour of Arundel,
drawn up in 1242, shows his Grandson as
holding, by serriee of fire Knights'-Fees

in arrear in 1170, and the debt subse- | 228).

IDS ALL, OR SHIYFNAL. 275

March 1173. This break in an otherwise uniform account, indicates
I doubt not a contemporary forfeiture of Walter de Dunstanvill,
but it begun rather earlier, and ended rather sooner than would
tally with any supposition that the disgraced Baron was associated
with the Treason of Prince Henry or the Norman rebellion of a
somewhat later date. At Michaelmas 1173, the Sheriff of Wilt-
shire recognized his tenure of Heytesbury during the preceding
half-year, and accordingly deducts £20. blanch from his own liabi-
lities at the Exchequer. In following years the usual entry allow-
ing Walter de Dunstanvill's full tenure of Heytesbury, is continued.
At Michaelmas 1177, the King having himself sat in judgment on
those who were accused of trespassing on the Royal Forests, had
amerced Walter de Dunstanvill in £100, — an enormous sum, and
greatly in excess of other amercements inflicted on some principal
persons in Shropshire. Walter had already paid £50 of this fine,
and before Michaelmas 1178, he discharged the balance in two sums
of £20. and £30, paid to the Sheriffs of Shropshire and Wiltshire
respectively. 89

Besides his possessions in England, Walter de Dunstanvill had
large estates in Normandy, situated apparently in the Bailiwick of
Dieppe and Arques. He seems to have mortgaged his land of
Boumaisnil in that quarter, to one Peter de Bures, who, having
been Yicomte of Dieppe and Arques during the war (1173-4), was
himself indebted to the Crown in vast sums of money. In part
payment of such debts, Peter de Bures transferred Walter de Dun-
stanvill's mortgage to the King. Hence, on the Norman Exchequer-
Boll of 1180, the said Walter appears as owing the King £70. for
Peter de Bures, which sum he formerly owed to said Peter, on his
(Walter's) land of Boumaisnil. 40

I should here notice that the Wiltshire Manors of Come, Colerne,
and Wili, which had been of the Domesday Fief of Humphrey
de Insula do not appear to have continued in his ordinary suc-
cession. They had been in possession of Reginald Fitz Boy, better
known as Beginald de Dunstanvill Earl of Cornwall, and on his
death (a.d. 1175), had escheated to the Crown. —

The Sheriff of Wiltshire continued to account for tallages,
scutages and ferms assessable on these Manors in 1189; but at
Michaelmas 1190, Walter de Dunstanvill rendered account through
the Sheriff "of one hundred merks for his fine of the land of

* Sot. Pip. 14 to 24 Hen. II. " Rot. Normanni* (Stapleton) i, 67.

276

IDSALL, OR SHIPPNAL.

Cumbe, and Colerne, and of Wili." 41 He had in fact recovered
part of his inheritance, and these Manors went to his Successors.

In 1192, Walter de Dunstanvill appears to have been of the
Retinue of John Earl of Moreton. 43 Whether he was also im-
plicated in the subsequent treason of that Prince I cannot deter-
mine. That he was no favourite of King Richard is certain,
but there is some obscurity, and something too of contradiction in
the documents which bear upon this question. Those documents
shall presently speak for themselves.

Another matter of uncertainty is the precise period of his death ;
and this I propose to investigate at length. Though the case is
one in which a definite conclusion can hardly be established, it
involves some points of collateral interest. —

To men in those days, and in the position of Walter de Dun-
stanvill, there were other deaths than that of physical dissolution.
There was what may be termed a civil death, the consequence
of forfeiture or political disqualification ; and there was the death
quantum ad sceculum, as it was termed, when a man, as men often
did, retired from the world to a Monastery. By one of these
deaths, died Walter de Dunstanvill in 1194, but by which, let a
comparison of documents decide if adequate so to do.

The County of Wilts appears to have been visited by Justices
Itinerant in October 1194, i.e. about six months after the King's
return from captivity. —

A Record of this Iter is preserved. It contains an Inquisition
as to several matters in the Hundred of Heytesbury. From this
mutilated document I think that I gather the following facts; viz.
that Walter de DunstanvilTs Manor of Hectredesburi, worth £40.
per annum, was in the King's hands ; — that Wido de Diva had so
seized it for the King during some part of Easter Term preceding;
— that the stock thereon had been escheated; that the Manor
without such stock was worth £23. per annum, — and that William
de St. Mary-Church (then the King's Escheator) had made a more
recent seizure thereof. It would also appear from another entry

« Hot Pip. 2 Eic. I, Wilts.

* On May 18, 1192, he attest* with
Ingcram de Fratellis a Charter of John,
Lord of Ireland and Earl of Moreton,
dated at Beading (Honasiicon, yii, 1143 ;
ii). On the following day, at London, the
same two persons attest a Charter of that

Prince to the City of Dublin (Fcedera, i,
55.) About the same time a Charter of
the Earl in favour of the Metropolitan
Church of Rouen is tested by Waiter de
Dunestanyille, Gilbert Basset, and many
others, — Abbots, Earls, and Barons (Rot.
Normannia, II, clix).

IDSALL, OR SHIFPNAL. 277

that Walter de Dunstanvill was not deceased ; for he seems to have
appeared in Court, and to have deposed that a former companion or
follower of his, then a fugitive and accused of murder, had left his
company before the said crime was perpetrated. 43

That Walter de Dunstanvill suffered forfeiture before his death
will also appear in another way. More than thirty-five years after
this Wiltshire Iter, his Widow, claiming her dower in Shalefeld
(Shalford, Surrey), asserted that he (Walter) had held that Manor
" all his life, nearly to the last of his days, until King Richard, in
the ninth year of his reign, of his own will and without judicial
sentence, disseized him of that Manor and of all his lands." 44 This
Plea involved a false computation as to the regnal year of King
Richard in which the alleged disseizin took place. Substituting
the fifth for the ninth year of the King as the date of the disseizin,
I have no doubt that the further fact (viz. that Walter de Dun-
stanvill survived his disgrace a very short time) is correct.

At Michaelmas 1194, the Sheriff of Shropshire accounted 20*.
for the Scutage of Walter de Dunstanvill in that County; and
William de St.-Mary-Church, as the King's Escheator, accounted
£21. 4*. for his Scutage in Wiltshire. 4 * This was the Scutage for
the King's Redemption, which was assessed at 20*. on each Knight's
Fee. Walter de Dunstanvill had therefore been a Tenant in capite
of 22i Knights'-Fees, thus charged.

At Michaelmas 1195, William de St.-Mary-Church, as Escheator,
accounts for a full year's ferm of certain Manors which were Walter
de Dunstanvill's. Hectrediber, Brocton and Cumb, all in Wilt-
shire, and Bercham in Sussex, are thus enumerated ; and in one
instance (that of Cumb) it is expressly said, that " the King has
the Manor in his hand, together with the Heir." 46 Here then we
have evidence, not only of the summary forfeiture, but also of the
death of Walter de Dunstanvill.

Before I proceed to speak of the succession of Walter de Dun-
stanvill, I should say something of a number of Charters wherein
his name occurs, and which further inform us of his connexions,
possessions, and character.

About the year 1167-8, Henry II, being then at Le Mans (in
Maine), concedes and confirms to the Church of Ferlea (Farleigh,
Wilts.), and the Monks there serving God, the land of Cutiford,

48 Abbreviatio Placitorum, pp. 15, 16.
44 Dodsworth, toL 42, fo. 149, quoting
a Plea- Roll now lost.

46 Sot. Pip, 6 Bic. I, Salop, and Escort*
in Wilts, enrolled therein.

46 Rot. Pip. 7 Eic. I, Escaetee.

II. 36

278

ID8ALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

which Walter de Dunstanvill and Alan, his Brother, had reasonably
conceded and given to the said Monks, in pure alms, for the health
of their own souls and for the soul of Robert de Dunstanvill, their
Uncle. Wherefore the said Monks were to enjoy the said land as
Walter de Dunstanvill, and his Brother Alan, and the same Robert,
their Uncle, had given and by their Charters confirmed it. 47

A Charter by Walter de " Donstanvill" himself gives to Lewes
Priory the land of Niewetimbre, for the health of his soul and the
souls of his Father and Mother, who had before given the same.
He also gives the Church of Winterburn, the tithe of his demesne
of Scaldeford (Shalford, Surrey), the Church of Bernham, with
the tithes of Hammes and the Chapel of Gretham (all in Sussex). 46

Another Charter names the land of Niewtembre only, but has
the same witnesses and is confirmed by " William, Earl of Arundell,
the third," in a separate deed. 40

The Charters of Walter de Dunstanvill to the Priory of Worn-
bridge, in Shropshire, were numerous. I hardly can pretend to
notice them in the order of their dates. In perhaps the earliest of
the series, —

" Valter de Dunstanvill," addressing all the faithful of Holy Church
and all his men, English and Norman, informs them that he has
given to the Priory the land which his Father had given, viz. that
which Eilric de Leis held ; — with all the children of the said Eilric,
for the health of the souls of his Father and himself. 60

* Harl. Chart. 48, C, 23.— Tested by
Rotrode Archbishop of Rouen, Jooeline,
and Hilary, Bishops of Salisbury and
Chichester, Earl William de Mandeville,
William Malet Dapifer, William de Curd
and William de Hasting.

48 Lewes Chartulary (ut supra) fo.126. —
Tested by Robert de Dunstanvill, Eicher
Priest of Torring, Herbert Brother of
Earl Reginald, Peter Fitz-Tored, Bald-
win de Frolavill, Robert de Torvill, Henry
Archdeacon of Chiohester, Master Jordan,
Hamo de Bosoo, Ralph de Sohireburn,
Gilbert, Aldred, Norman, Ralph de Big-
genever, Gerard Cursor. —

If the first witness of this deed be, as is
most probable, the Uncle of the Grantor,
then the deed will have passed before
1168, and Robert de Dunstanvill will have
enfeoffed his Nephew and Heir in Shalford

before his own death. Robert de Dun-
stanvill has also been mentioned as the
original Donor of the Chapel of Gretham.

49 Ibidem, fo. 127.— Tested by Roger
Rusteg the Seneschal of the Earl, Robert
de Tilers, and Manaseer Agnillra^ who
was dead in 1194, a hint, by the way, as
to the great errors which pervade all
received accounts of the succession of
D* Albini Earl of Arundel

M Chartulary, Tit. Lega Priori*, 4*.,
No. xxviij. This Charter is tested by the
Abbot of Haemon, Alan the Clerk, Peter
Fitz Torrot (Toret), ;Robert Fits Osbert,
Hugh Fitz Warin, Roger de Saint Martin.
It passed, I think, before the year 1181,
which seems to be the date of a general
Charter of Confirmation granted by
Henry II to Wombridge, wherein this grant
is verbally recited.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

279

In another Charter " Valter de Dunstanvill" confirms his Father
Alan's grant of half-a~Ferendel which Eilric held in Leies ; and he
adds, for the health of the souls of himself, his wife, and parents,
fourteen acres, to be held by the Canons together with the said
land. 61

The next grant of Walter de Dunstanvill to Wombridge, seems to
be that of Aynulf's Lee ; but the two deeds which he executed in
this matter, have been so inaccurately transcribed in the Wom-
bridge Chartulary, that I will venture to say nothing more of the
premises conveyed, than that they seem to have been within the
Lordship of Idsall, and to have constituted a part of that estate
which the Canons of Wombridge afterwards enjoyed under the
comprehensive name of Prior's Lee.

By the first of these transcripts he is represented, as Walter de
Dunstanvill, to give for the souls' health of himself and Predeces-
sors " Leias Amulsi" to the Priory; he wills also that his body
shall be buried in the aforesaid place of St. Leonard (that is in the
Priory Church of Wombridge, dedicated to St. Leonard) if it should
befall him to die in England. 62

The second Transcript shows him as granting "Amusne's
Legam " in the same way, but with a different set of witnesses to
the Deed. 63

His other gift to Wombridge Priory is the Main subject of three
separate deeds, transcribed in the Chartulary. — Each deed has its
peculiar significance. —

By one, he gives for the soul's health of himself, his Wife,
Hawiz de Praheus, and of his Predecessors and Successors, his

Sl Ibidem, No. xiv. The Testing Clause
of this Charter seems to have been mis-
understood by its Transcribers. The
witnesses are Alan de Dunstanrille (pro-
bably the Grantor's Brother), Roger de
FretterOle, William de Hedlega, Feres
Derliton (probably Be Eiton), Eadulf
Panton, Roger de Preston, Walter de
Dunetanvfll Clerk, Walter de Watterill,
Thomas de Leis, Robert de Linton (pro-
bably Lin tot). I should incline to date
the Deed about 1188.

° Ibidem, No. i. The witnesses are
Peter FitaThoret and Philip and Bartho-
lomew his Sons, Reginald de Dauvill and
Pharamus de Traoi, William de Headley,
Walter de Lega and Leonard his Brother,

William the Clerk and Robert de Lintot,
Oliver, and Robert de Grenhul, Master
Richard of Ideshal, Ac.

« Ibidem, No. ij. The witnesses are
William Earl of Ferrers, Thomas Basseth
and Alan Basseth, Peter Fits Thoret and
his Sons Philip and Bartholomew, Regi-
nald de Dauvill, (Pharamus) de Traci,
and John his Brother, William deHeres,
Robert de Lintot, William Paternoster,
Walter de Lega and Leonard his Brother,
Master Richard (of Idsall, I suppose),
William de Cutona, John de Hemmes,
Robert de Belmes, &c.

There can be little doubt that this deed
passed between 1191 and 1194.

280

IDSALL, OR SHIFPNAL.

Mills of Ydeshal saving the multure of his own house, and of others
who ought to have free multure therein. He also gives twenty
acres of his wood of Lehes near the land of Thomas de Lehes, as
he and his free men shall provide. 64

Another deed, with a similar movent-clause, gives the two Mills
which he had in his Manor of Ydeshal, with all the suit of his men
in the said Manor, and with free water-course from every and all
sources, and means of repairing the mill-stanks whenever necessary,
saving the multure of his own house. And for this the Canons
were to find a Chaplain who should celebrate daily service in their
Church of Wombrugg, for the souls' -health of himself, his wife, his
Ancestors and Successors, for ever. 65

In the third phase of this grant, Walter de Dunstanvill, Lord of
Idshall, with the same movent clause, grants to the Priory two Mills
which he had in his Manor of Ideshall, viz. the Mill of Ideshall and
the. Mill of Patesford, with sites of both, and suit of his free tenants,
&c. with the same condition as to a Chaplain officiating daily for the
souls of himself, his wife Hawise, &c. for ever. 66

I close these extracts from the Wombridge Chartulary with refer-
ence to a deed, before set forth ; — wherein Walter de Dunstanvill,
with his Knights, attests the Charter of Griffin de Sutton to
that House. 67

And he seems to have been interested in the concerns of other
Religious Houses in Shropshire. — He attested the Certificates of
Roger de Powis and John le Strange (I), wherein those great men
recorded their remembrance of the first William Fitz Alan having
granted Wroxeter Church to Haghmon Abbey. These Certificates,
as I have before said, must have been drawn up about the year 1175 ;
and, between that period and 1190, Walter de Dunstanvill, being

M Ibidem, No. xxvij. The witnesses are
Abbot Leonard of Dublin, Abbot Richard
of Haemon, Abbot Walter of LilleshuU,
Robert Prior of Wenloke, Walter de Dun-
stanville Clerk " my kinsman " (oognato
meo), Thomas Basseth "my nephew,"
Engeran de Praheus, Peter Eitz Thoret
and B. ^(Bartholomew) his Son, Ralph
Pantulf and William his (Son, Peter de
Heiton, &c. —

The same limits may be assigned for
the date of this deed as of the last.

16 Ibidem, No. xxvi. The witnesses are
as those of the last deed, omitting the

Abbot of Dublin and William son of
Ralph Pantulf, but adding Roger de
"Stalevill" (probably Fralevill) and
Alan de Dunstanvill, and giving Peter de
"Eyton" with an intelligible orthography.

60 Ibidem, No. xlvi. The witnesses are
Walter Abbot of Lileshull, Richard Abbot
of Hamond, Robert Prior of Wenlok,
Walter de Dunstanvill Clerk, " my kins-
man," Roger deFrala- Villa, Thomas Bas-
set " my nephew," Robert (read Roger)
Corbet of Hedley, Peter de Eiton, Ac.

67 Supra, page 112, note 16.

IDSALL, OR SBIFPNAL. 281

Lord of Adderley, in Shropshire, came to an agreement with Ralph,
Abbot of Salop, as to some boundary ; 68 — the particulars of which
agreement shall be given hereafter.

A Charter by which this Walter de Dunstanvill made provision
for his Harper, Oliver, is so relative to his Seigneury at Idscall and
to his other Charters, and so instructive in itself, that I must needs
give it in full and in the original Latin. 59 It is as follows : —

Sciant omnes et presentes et futuri quod ego Walterus de Dun-
stanvilla dedi et concessi Olivario Citharedo meo pro suo servicio
tutelam terre Bogerii de Halechtuna ad totam vitam snam cum
uxore Bogerii quam predictus Olivarius assensu meo desponsavit, et
tutelam heredis predicti Bogerii et ipsum heredem ad consulendum
ad voluntatem sepedicti Olivarii. Et hanc predictam tutelam con-
cessi liberam et quietam de tac et de tol illi et hominibus suis et de
omnibus serviciis excepto quod ille mutabit unum spreverium
singulis annis ad suum custum vel unum ostorium ad custum domini
et tunc homines domini parabunt muiam in qua ponetur, ' Et cum
ista predicta tutela dedi et concessi predicto Olivario pro homagio
su6 et pro servicio suo in expectatione sue Warisonis nominatam
illam virgatam terre quam Achi et Swein de Knoila tenuerunt et
omnia assarta que ego illi dedi de Longa Buddigga usque ad Sumer-
lonam sicuti Smelebrock ilia dividit et quieta de tac et de tol illi
et hominibus suis et de omnibus serviciis et consuetudinibus in
feudum et in hereditatem cum omnibus pertinentiis suis in bosco et
in piano tenendam de me et de heredibus meis ille et heredes sui red-
dendo inde annuatim ille vel heredes sui mihi vel heredibus meis in
die pasche quedam calcaria vel vi. d. Hanc vero donacionem et con-
cessionem quia volo ut ille rate et inconcusse permaneant illas pre-
sentis scripti auctoritate simul et sigilli mei impressione firmiter
corroboravi. Hiis testibus Alano de Dunstanvill. 80 Hawis' de
Pratellis. 61 Thoma Basset. 88 Alano Basset. 62 Walter© persona de
Idesal. 63 Petro filio Thoret.** Beginaldo de Daivill. 66 Baldwinode
Fredevill. Alano filio Galfridi. 66 Gisleberto de Bernevall. 67 Willielmo

M Salop Chartulary, No. 21.

n Charter in possession of the Be?.
John Brooke of Haughton.

00 The Grantor's Brother probably.

61 Now, or afterwards, wife of the
Grantor.

* The Grantor's Nephews.

64 Lord of Moreton, Evelith, Hem,
Hinnington, &c

tt AKnight holding under the Grantor
at Winterburn, Wilts.

66 Probably Alan la Zouche, Lord of
Tong.

87 Barnevill is a Norman ottf, midway

° The Grantor's Cousin. | between Arques and Bouen.

282

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

Clerico. Rodberto de Lintot. 08 Alano nepote suo. Bartholomeo
fiilo Petri de Morton." Willielmo juvene de Hedlela. 70 Alano
de Hedleia. 71 Willielmo Pater-Noster. 72 Henrico Buberel et
Marcando, et multis aliis.

This Walter de Dunstanville is said to have "married Ursula a
daughter and Coheir of Reginald de Dunstanvill Earl of Cornwall,
and to have obtained in her right the Lordship of Ideshale." 7 * We
have already seen that he acquired Idsall hereditarily from his
Father, nor is it probable that the Earl of Cornwall ever had any
interest there. And though the Manors of Cumbe (Castle-Cumb),
Colerne, and Wili, in Wiltshire, having at one time been the Earl's,
were afterwards given to Walter de Dunstanvill, yet I cannot
account that circumstance to be evidence in proof of the alleged
match. Those Manors seem to me to have been restored by the
Crown to Walter de Dunstanvill, as his own hereditary right rather
than in the right of any wife.

Be this as it may, and supposing that Walter de Dunstanvill had
another wife or wives previous to his marriage with Hawise de
Pr^aux, it is certain that by any such wife or wives he had no issue
surviving bim, and that his only Son, another Walter, was the Son
of Hawise, and a mere infant at his Father's death.

Without attempting to ascertain who was that wife of Walter de
Dunstanvill to whom he alludes in his second Charter to Worn-
bridge, we have it on Hawise des Preaux own testimony that she
became his wife after the accession of King Richard I (Sept. 1189),
and we have also seen that within the next five years Walter de
Dunstanvill had suffered forfeiture, under which he shortly died. —

I have hinted a possibility that during such short interval he
became a Member of some Religious Community. If so it was
unquestionably the House of Augustine Canons at Wombridge

• Lintot was a vitt in the Bailiwick of
Arques, where also lay DunstanvilTs
Norman Fief.

• Son, that is of Peter Fiti Thoret,
the previous witness.

70 Eldest son, and afterwards heir of
William de Hadley Lord of High ErcalL

71 The preceding witness had an Uncle
and a Brother named Alan. The Uncle
was Lord of Hadley and High Hatton,
and Patron of Wombridge Priory.

" Of Drayton, near Idsall.

79 Dugdale (Baronage, p. 591) quotes
Vincent, Corr.p.130, and .Sot. .ftp. 8Bic. I,
Salop, in support of these facts. The Pipe
Boll however lends them no corroboration
whatever, and I am much mistaken if
Vincent drew his information from any
sound authority. I think that both Vin-
cent and Dugdale were, in this matter,
dupes of a most scandalous imposture
and forgery, which I shall, in due course,
endeavour to expose.

IDS ALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

283

which afforded him a retreat ; and there too I suppose him, accor-
ding to his own desire already expressed, to have been buried.

The following notice of his presumed Monument expresses the opinion of one who
is well entitled to be heard on this or any other subject connected with Shropshire
Antiquities : 74 —

" In 1825," says my authority, " the upper part of a very ancient monument,
consisting of the oumbent effigy of a cross-legged knight in mail armour, with
surcoat, sword in scabbard by his side, gauntlets on ^hands (the left holding the
scabbard o£ and the right on the hilt of, as if about to draw, the sword), spun oil
heels, head resting on a cushion and the feet on a lion, was removed from Wombridge,
where it had lain in the church-yard ever since the demolition of the old church, and
where it went formerly by the appellation of ( old Dansyfylde,' but previous to its
removal by that of 'old Dangerville,' to the south aisle of the Abbey Church,
Shrewsbury. On its removal it was thought to represent the Walter de Dunstanville
who died 25 Hen. IIL" 7 »

My authority then refers to the Charter of the first Walter de Dunstanville, which
expresses the Grantor's wish to be buried at Wombridge, and concludes the Effigy to
be his. — In that view I most entirely concur.

Having undertaken to give an account of this Barony and Family
of Dunstanvill, I should before I pass to the immediate succession of
Walter (I), say something of his Brother Alan and his Sister Alice.

Alan de Dunstanvill follows Walter in attesting several deeds of
their Brother-in-Law, Thomas Basset, and his Son Gilbert, which
deeds passed before the year 1181.

In 1185-6, Alan de Dunstanvill appears as having to wife the
Coheiress of Emma de Langetot, which Emma, then sixty years of
age, was of the race of " Chedney and Joceline Crispin." Her lands
were in Buckinghamshire. The wife of Alan was then aged thirty. 70

This Alan seems to have been largely enfeoffed in Cornwall ;
probably during the time when the Earldom was held by Reginald
de Dunstanvill. In 1187 he, Alan, was returned as holding twelve
Pees in capite in that County. 77

Passing some minor notices of his name it would appear that he
long survived his elder Brother, for, on 5 Sept. 1216, King John
empowers his beloved and faithful Alan de Dunstanvill to seize the
lands of William Basset which are of his Fee, the said William being
with the King's enemies. 78 —

74 Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury, —
who contributed this notice to the Col-
lectanea Topographic* ei Oenealogica
(vol. t, p. 176), and by whose permission
I transcribe it.

71 History of Shrewsbury, toL ii, Addi-
tions, p. 532. Dugdale probably originated

this mistake by ascribing the grant of
Aynulfs Lee to the second Walter do
Dunstanyille (Baronage, p. 691)*
78 De Puellis et Dominabus, p. 21.

77 Liber Buber Scaccarii, fo. xlix.

78 Clous, i, 286. William, son of John
son of Osmund Basset, married Cecily

284

IDSALL, OB 8HIFFNAL.

These lands appear to have been in Cornwall. —

It is, I presume, from thie Alan de Dunstanvill that the present
Barons De Dunstanvill and Basset allege a lineal descent, but
Tehidy (Co. Cornwall), from which they take their title, remained
with the elder branch of the family long after the era of Alan de
Dunstanvill.

Alice de Dunstanvill, sister of Walter and Alan, was married,
before the year 1160, to Thomas Basset, usually styled of Heden-
don. He died about February 1181, but she was surviving in
1186.—

Their issue was three sons, and a daughter, wife first of Albert de
Oresley, who died about 1179, and secondly, of Wido de Creoun. —

The Sons of Thomas and Alice Basset were Gilbert, Thomas, and
Alan. Each of them attained a great position and has been reputed
of Baronial Rank. Gilbert, the founder of Burchester Priory, has
usually been styled of Hedendon. He died in 1205 leaving a sole
daughter and heir, Eustachia, then the wife of Richard de Camvill.

Thomas Basset, usually styled of Colinton, died in 1220, leaving
three daughters his coheirs.

Alan Basset, usually styled of Wycombe, seems to have lived till
1232, and left three sons, who, each in turn, enjoyed his honours,
but had no male issue to continue their line.

It was necessary to state thus much in order to explain various
matters which came to be litigated during the life of Walter de
Dunstanvill (II).

His Father Walter (I), is said to have disposed of several Manors
to his relations, e. g. to have given to his Sister Alice in frank-mar-
riage the Manor of Shalford (Surrey), to have petitioned King
Richard to grant to Thomas Basset his Nephew, the Manors of
Culinton and Witeford (Devonshire), 79 and to have himself granted
to Alan Basset, another Nephew, that Manor of Winterburn which
we have so often mentioned.

daughter of Alan de Dunstanvill, and had
with her lands in Cornwall. These were
given in frank-marriage by Alan. The
Lady deceased before February 1208,
when her Father was living. She is
therefore improperly said by Writers on
the Peerage to have been " sole heir" of
Alan. She can only have been so in her
issue.

* Testa de Nemll, fo. 888. Thomas
Basset after his Uncle's death, and for the

soul of his said Uncle, gave to Wombridge
Priory some land at Wich-Malbank
(Cheshire). His deed is attested by Gil-
bert Basset and Brice Pantulf, &o. It
passed between 1094 and 1206. It was
confirmed by Kanulf (Blundevil) Earl of
Chester, and after Thomas Basset's death
(1220) by Philippa Malbank his widow,
daughter and coheir of William Malbank.
(Wombridge Chartulary, TU. Wycke;
Nob. ii, iy, iv).

IDSALL, OR SHIFPNAL. 285

We will now follow the events of the minority of Walter de
Dunstanvill (II), according to their order. —

On Dec. 12, 1194, King Richard, then at Chinon, confirms to
his faithful Knight Alan Basset, the donation which " Walter de
Dunstanvill made him of Winterburn, as said Walter's Charter,
which Alan had, did testify." The Royal confirmation was again
repeated Aug. 22, 1198. 80

Gilbert Basset had, before his Uncle's death, been suing him in
the King's Court for Scandeford (Shalford), as the marriage portion
of Alice, Gilbert's Mother; and King Richard, as was afterwards
alleged, rendered the same (Shalefeld and Aldeford) to Gilbert,
before Walter de Dunstanvill (I) had married Hawise des Preaux.
King Richard's Charter on the subject was fully confirmed by
King John on 20 March, 1200, 81 Gilbert Basset fining twenty
merks for such confirmation. 88 Nevertheless the Widow of Walter
de Dunstanvill (I), afterwards claimed dower in that Manor, and the
right of Gilbert Bassef s heirs thereto was otherwise disputed.

At Michaelmas 1196, William de St.-Mary-Church, accounted
£21. 4*. for the Scutage of Normandy, being the sum chargeable
on twenty-one and one-fifth Knights'-Fees of Walter de Dunstan-
vill, in Wiltshire. —

The Sheriff of Shropshire, similarly accounted 20*. for Scutage
of one Fee of the same Walter in that County. —

Further, the wife of the said Walter had been deprived of
Ydeshale about half a year, and William de St.-Mary-Church paid
to the Crown, a sum of £5. 6s. for rents received by him, in the
interval, out of that Manor ; and 13*. 4rf. for other perquisites
thereof. 83

At Michaelmas 1197, the Sheriff of Shropshire, on similar
accounts, paid 20*. for the third Scutage of King Richard, —
£6. 8*. for one half year's issues of Ydeshal, and £8. 5*. 2d. (less
certain arrears and charges) for the issues of a second half-year. 84

At Michaelmas 1198, the Sheriff discharges his arrears of this
ferm ; and accounts for £16. 10*. 4d., the gross receipts of the
current year, as certified by Thomas Noel, and Hugh de Chaucumb. 86

Also in this year, I find that Geoffrey de Say, Bailiff of Arques
(in Normandy), accounted to the King £40. for issues of Walter de
Dunstanvill's lands in that Province. 86

80 Fadera, i, 67.

81 Rot. Chart. Regit Johanms, p. 41.
* Rot. Cane. 8 John, p. 275.

« * » Rot. Rip. 8, 9, 10 Ric. I.
M Rot. NormannuB (Stapleton), iii,
cxzxi.

ii. 37

286 IDS ALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

For the two years ending Michaelmas 1200, Stephen de Turnham
was Fermor of Ydeshal. His debt of £16. 10*. 4rf. for each year
remained in arrear till April 8, 1204, when it was discharged from
the Bolls, in consequence of a fine of 1000 merks which he offered
the King to be quit of all acoompts and arrears, in respect of
escheats and wardships held by him up to that time. 87

These arrears included a debt of £30. due from the said Stephen,
as Fermor of Heytesbury up to Midsummer 1200. 88

From the latter period till March 1201, Robert de Berneres
seems to have fermed Dunstanvill' s Wiltshire and Sussex Manors.
He subsequently accounted for various sums, which had thus
become due on Heytesbury, Brocton, Cumb and Bercham. 89

About April 1201, William Briwerr proffered to the King a fine
of 800 merks to have custody, and marriage of the heir of Walter
de Dunstanvill, saving the dower of said Walter's Widow. 90
This Fine seems in the first instance to have been accepted ; for
on the Levy of a Scutage in 1201, William Briwerr had received
£12. 6*. Sd. from the Knights of Dunstanvill's Wiltshire Fief. 91
However Briwerr's fine was eventually cancelled ; for about June
1201, Gilbert Basset proffered the double sum of 600 merks for
the same Wardship. This Fine was received ; — and at Michaelmas
1201, Gilbert Basset's name appears as accredited, in the usual
way, with the current half- year's ferm of Heytesbury. 93

In April 1205, Gilbert Basset has respite for a portion of his Fine
then due ; " but on Dec. 24, in the same year he was dead ; for then
the Tenants, both of his own lands, and of the land which he had
in custody with Dunstanvill's Heir, are enjoined to answer to John
Fitz Hugh, and Bartholomew a Clerk, whom the King had appa-
rently appointed his Receivers in this matter. 24

About February 1206, Thomas Basset proffered 200 merks,
and all arrears of his Brother Gilbert's Fine, for this wardship. 96
And it is clear that he had it ; — for on March 3 following, the King
orders John Fitz Hugh to ascertain whether Scaldeford (Shalford)
had belonged to Walter de Dunstanvill (I), and, if it had, to give
it up to Thomas Basset, as Gustos of the heir. 96

w » » Hot. Pip. 2 to 6 John.

90 Oblata, p. 133. A previous fine, re-
corded on the Oxfordshire Pipe Boll of
Michaelmas 1200, is quoted by Dugdale.
Thereby Thomas and Alan Basset prof-
fered 500 merks for this Wardship, but
had it not. {Baronage, i, p. 591.)

91 Sot. Cane. 8 John, Wilis.

* ObUrta, p. 169.
99 Cftnu.i,29.

* Patent, p. 57.

* Oblata, p. 349.
96 Clam, i, 66.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

287

On March 15 following, King John restores to Gerard de Cam-
ville the Manors of Scaldeford and Anfald, which Gilbert Basset
had held after his fine for custody of Walter de Dunstanvill's land.
Gerard is to hold those Manors till it be cleared up in the King's
Court {coram Rege), whether said Manors ought to remain to the
heir of Gilbert Basset or to the heir of Walter de Dunstanvill.* 7

In Easter Term, 1206, it was settled in the King's Court that
Scandeford should remain to Richard de Camvill and Eustachia,
his wife, by concession and will of the King, till the son of Walter
de Dunstanvill (apparently represented on this occasion by his
guardian, Thomas Basset) should be of age. 98

Meanwhile, and, as I think, before the death of King Richard,
Ingelram de Pratellis (or des Prlaux) had married Hawise, Relict
of the first Walter de Dunstanvill. This Ingelram was a younger
son of a powerful Norman family. He had been in the Retinue
of Dunstanvill and was probably related to Hawise. He after-
wards appears in the suit of King Richard, and among the special
Favourites of King John. On her marriage with him, Hawise de
Dunstanvill appears to have changed her Christian name. She is
on all later occasions called Sibil."

Her dower became matter of much litigation, but as early as
Michaelmas 1109, I find Ingelram de Pratellis acquitted of his
Scutage in Salop (assessed on the Fee of Walter de Dunstanvill),
by writ of the King's Justiciar. 100 Under similar writs, of the
King, he was exempted by the Sheriff of Shropshire from the
second, third, fourth, and fifth Scutages of John, as assessed in the
years 1201, 1202, 1203, and 1204. To the sixth Scutage, that of
1205, he was assessed two merks for one Knight's-Fee. In 1206
he was exempted from the seventh Scutage of the same reign. 101

In June 1211, Ingeram de Pratellis was returned by the Sheriff
as a Knight of Shropshire, holding the dower of his wife of the
King in capite, by the service of one Knight's-Fee. His land was
estimated as annually worth £10. 108

A similar, and nearly contemporary, return of Knights holding

w Cfa«#.i,67. Gerard deCamnllwaa
Father of Richard, which Richard had
already married Eustachia only daughter
and Heir of Gilbert Baaset. —

It is singular that this matter should
have been kept in abeyance, when the
Charters of both King Bichard and King

John had confirmed Shalford to Gilbert
Basset.

98 Abbreviatio Placitonm % p. 47.

99 For this change or plurality of names
vide supra, p. 116, note 81.

ioo 101 jet,;. Pip. 1 to S John.

102 Testa de NeviU, p. 66.

288

IDSALL, OB SHIFFNAL.

in capite in Shropshire, says that Ingelram de PrateDis holds one
Fee in Hideshale, with the Mother of Walter de Dnnstanvill. 108

At Michaelmas 1214, Ingeram de Pratellis was exempted from
the Scutage of Poitou, then assessed at the rate of three merks on
each Knight's-Fee. 104

Previous to this date Walter de Dnnstanvill (II) had attained his
majority, and it is fitting that we should mark the first opening of
his career. —

On April 22, 1213, having married a daughter of William Fits
Alan, lately deceased, the King gives him 100 merks, and, as I
presume, out of Fitz Alan's estate. The money was paid to Roger,
a Knight and Companion of said Walter. 105

About Dec. 1213, he occurs as a Surety in a sum of twenty
merks, for a Fine proffered by Isolda fiiset in Wiltshire. 106

In February 1214, he went with King John to Poitou, 107 and
the same year is Surety for a Fine proffered in Sussex by Robert
le Sauvage.

On Feb. 7, 1215, being styled the King's "faithful and
beloved," he has a grant of Market and Fair, to be held in his
Wiltshire Manor of Heytesbury. 108

On Oct. 9, 1215, having been apparently under some suspicion
of disloyalty, the King commands his Constables of Bristol, Marl-
borough, and Devizes, not to injure him or his lands, and to
restore aught which they might have taken therefrom. 109

On Dec. 10 following, Henry Fitz Count (Son of Earl Reginald)
and the Sheriff of Cornwall are ordered to give him reseizin of
Tiggedun, of which said Henry had disseized him. 110

On July 23, 1216, his final secession from King John's allegiance
is apparent. Thomas de Samford is then ordered to give his lands
of Cumb, Brocton, and Heytesbury to Geoffrey and Oliver de
Butevill for their support in the King's service. 111

*■ Liber Ruber, fo. czxxrij. Another
return made between 1210 and 1212
shows Walter de Dunstanvill to be the
reputed Tenant in capite of Heytesbury,
Cumbe (Castle Comb), Colerne, and Brae-
ton, and Engeram de Pratellis to have
some interest in Colerne. (Ibidem, fo.
exxxij, Tit. WiUesK.)

w Rot. Pip. 16 John, Salop.

106 Mit<2. 14 John (printed in Cole's
Document*, p. 259). The name of Fitz
Alan's daughter was Petronilla.

» Oblata, p. 612.
«* Clau*. i, 166, 200.
«* Ibidem, p. 186.
1W Ibidem, p. 231.

110 Ibidem, p. 241. — It does not appear
how the elder branch of the Dunstanyills
acquired its Cornish Estates, whether by
feoffment of Earl Reginald, or of King
John himself, whilst Earl of Moretonand
Cornwall.

111 Ibidem, p. 278.

IDS ALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

289

Before November 4, 1217, he had returned to the allegiance of
King Henry III, and the Sheriffs of Shropshire, Cambridgeshire,
Wiltshire, and Surrey are ordered accordingly ; — to restore his
estates. 119

About the same time he has Letters of Scutage addressed to the
Sheriffe of Sussex and Wiltshire; — that is, being, I suppose, in the
King's service, he was discharged of Scutage himself, but empowered
to collect it from such of his Tenants as were not similarly in
attendance. 118

At Michaelmas 1218, not having had Letters to the Sheriff of
Salop exempting him from assessment to the first Scutage of
Henry III, and being probably at this time seized of Idsall, owing
to some variance with his Mother, he, and not Ingeram des Preaux,
is charged two merks on one fee in Ydeshall on that Scutage. He
paid the same in the year following. 114

On Feb. 19, 1221, he had the usual Letters of Scutage in respect
of his personal service in the Army of Biham, but at Michaelmas
following, the Sheriff of Shropshire entered the Royal exemption of
the Idsall Fee as in favour of Ingelram de Pratellis. 116

At the Shrewsbury Assizes of November 1221, the cause between
Engeram de Pratellis and Sibil his wife complainants (querentes)
and Walter de Dunstanvill, concerning Sibil's Dower in Ideshall
was compounded. The lands which Engeram and Sibil held in
dower on the day of concord were to remain to them. And Walter
would give to them, in augmentation, six titrates of land in
Hammes (Sussex) and in Berkshire. And they would remit to
Walter all their right in his remaining lands. And if the lands
in Hammes (Sussex) and in Berkshire were not sufficient to
realize an annual income of £6. then the deficiency should be made
up out of lands in Wiltshire. This was the foundation of their
agreement, and the parties were appointed to meet at Westminster
on the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20, 1222) to receive their respective
Chirographs (formal Fines) ; and in the mean time, extent (valua-
tion) of the lands concerned was to be made. 116

The final Concord thus contemplated was levied at Westminster

m Ibidem, p. 841. DunBtanvilTs Cam-
bridgeshire land* were acquired with hit
wife, Petronilla Fits Alan. Letters of
safe conduct) enabling him and John Fits
Alan (his Brother-in-Law) to oome to the
Court, bear date Oct. 2, 1217. (Patent,
1 Hen. III.)

"> Ibidem, p. 872.
1M Rot. Pip. 2 & 8 Hen. Ill, Salop.
"• C2o««.i,475,and.Bof.i*p.5Hen.III,
Salop.

110 Salop A$*Ues t 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 8.

290 IDS ALL, OR SH1FFNAL.

on June 5, 1222, between Engeram de Pratellis, and Sibil hi* wife
plaintiffs (petentes)/ and Walter de Dunstanvill, Tenant of the
Manor of Idechall with its appurtenances, which Engeram and Sibil
claimed to be the dower of Sibil out of the free tenement which
had been Walter de DunstanvibVs, the Tenant's Father. — And
whereof there was suit at law, &c. — The Fine was, that Walter
conceded to the Plaintiffs a third of the issues of all woods per-
taining to the Manors of Ideshale and Aldredesle (Adderley) ;
he also conceded Roger de Ideshale with his tenement, and Eichard
Was of Aldredesle with his tenement, and belongings (sequelft) ;
and the residue (of those Manors) was to remain to Walter.
And Engeram and Sibil were to hold the Manor of Culne
(Colerne, Wilts), and all the tenements which were of Walter's
Fee in the same ; but the Manor of Sterte and twenty-five virgates
in Cumb (Castle Comb), and two mills, one meadow, and one wood,
and all the tenement of Wily (which Nicholas Fitz Thomas held for
£8. per annum, at fee-farm, and by knight's service) and all the
Manor of Heterede and of Brocton were to remain to Walter.
Walter further conceded to Engeram and Sibil the Manor of
Hammes in Sussex, except the homage and service of Hamo de
Hammes,and except the meadow,whichwasof old appurtenant to the
Manor of Bircham, which was to remain to Walter. Moreover Walter
conceded the service of William de Selinton (due) on one hide in
Bercham and the tenements of divers persons in Bercham and in
Waldo. And Engeram and Sibil were to have all the Knight's
Fees which they held before, viz. two fees of Hugh de Cumbwell
in Cumbwell and in Cumpton, and one hide in Facheshag and one
fee which Adam de Cardunull held in Polton, and one fee in the
same which the Abbot of Tewksbury held, and three parts of a fee
in Brictefeld which William de Nevill held, and half a fee in Wily-
Bechampton which Gilbert de Meleford held, and the foreign service
of four hides (whereof five hides were equivalent to one fee) held by
Richard de Lucteshull in Lucteshull, and the Knight's service
pertaining to five hides in Bideston, which William de Bideston held.
All these were to be held by Engeram and Sibil (for the life of
Sibil), of Walter and his heirs, in name of dower. And it was to be
noted that this concession was made out of lands and tenements
whereof Walter, formerly husband of Sibil had given dower to the
said Sibil. It was also to be noted that all rents, which Engeram
and Sibil had previously in Bercham, were to remain to them, except
the demesne, which they surrendered to Walter. 117

"' Finos Divers. Comitat. 6 Hen. Ill, No. 21.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

291

Before I continue my account of Walter de Dunstanvill (II), I will
say what remains to be said of Ingeram de Fr£aux and his wife
Sibil. —

On May 2, 1225, a King's writ allows Ingeram some facility for
conveying corn by sea from his Manor of Hammes in Sussex. 118

In September 1226, he and his wife appoint Attorneys in a suit
which they had against William Longespee and Idonea his wife,
concerning a third part of the Manor of Shalford. 119

Idonea, wife of William Longespee, was sole daughter and heir
of Richard de Camvill by Eustachia, sole daughter and heir of
Gilbert Basset. —

Hence her tenure of Shalford.

Another appointment of Attorneys in November 1226, calls the
Defendant, u William son of William Longespe," and states the
claimed to be a third part of three carucates. 130

At Michaelmas 1229, Ingelram de Pr&ux was deceased ; and his
heir was inadvertently entered on the Shropshire Pipe- Boll as
owing two merks on one Knight's-Fee for the Scutage of Keri.
But this entry has a mark of cancellation affixed, and the reason
thereof given thus, — " because Walter de Dunstanvill son and heir
of Ingelram' s wife, answers below." Accordingly an entry lower
down on the Roll charges the said Walter with these two merks,
but he had subsequent exemption by writ of the King. 181

Sibil de Pr&aux, now a second time a Widow, continued her
suit against William and Idonea Longespee. —

On May 16, 1230, the cause came to trial at Westminster. —
" Sibil de Ferrers" (so written for Praers) 12 * « sued William de
Longspee and Idonea his wife, for a third part of a Knight's- Fee
in Shalefeld and Aldeford as her dower, whereof Walter de
Dunstanvill, formerly her husband," (had been seized on the day
when he had espoused her) .

William and Idonea say that " Sibil ought not to have dower
thereof, because said Walter was not seized of said land, so as to be
able to grant dower thereof, neither on the day when he espoused
Sibil nor ever afterwards; — because that King Richard, before

"» Claw, ii, 35.
»» daw. ii, 155.
>» Ibidem, 205.

>& Rot. Pip. 18 Hen. Ill, Salop.
m It is singular to observe the amount
of confusion which this one scribed error

has produced. Manning and Bray, in
their History of Surrey, have developed it
into a complex mis-statement. Kennett,
in his Parochial Antiquities, has annexed
it to other mistakes with which he encum-
bers the genealogy of Dunstanrill.

292

IDSALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

Walter married Sibil, restored the said land to one Gilbert Basset,
as the right and marriage portion of Alice Dunstanvill, Sister of
said Walter, and Mother of said Gilbert, to which Alice the said
Walter had given the same land in marriage. And (William and
Idonea) produce the Charter of the King (Richard), which testi-
fied hereunto." —

And Sibil comes into Court and says, that " the Charter ought
not to injure her, forasmuch as Robert de Dunstanville, Uncle of
Walter aforesaid (her husband), bought that land from Robert
Watevile for 100 merks and two greyhounds, and held it all his
life. And because he (Robert) died without heir of his body, the
land descended to the aforesaid Walter as his Nephew and heir,
which Walter held the same all his life, nearly to the last of his
days, until the same King Richard, in the ninth year of his reign,
by his own will and without judicial sentence, disseized him (Walter)
of that and all his other lands. And to prove this Sibil puts her-
self on the Country, &c. And the Court decides that a jury should
make inquest thereon, &c." 12S

Unable to trace the result of this suit, which I conceive must
have been unfavourable to the Plaintiff, I return to Walter de
Dunstanvill (II), who at Michaelmas 1224, is found to be exempted,
on the Shropshire Pipe Roll, from both the Scutages of Montgomery
and Bedford.

On May 14, 1225, he is appointed a Commissioner to convey to
Gloucester the tax of the Fifteenth then levied in the Counties of
Salop and Stafford. 184

On March 27, 1227, he has a grant of Market and Fair at
Heytesbury, identical as to days and duration with the previous
Charter of King John. 186

His acquittance of the Scutage of Keri in 1229 has already been
noticed.

In Easter Term 1230, he had a suit against Reginald de Yalletort
and Johanna his wife and her coparcners, concerning land unspeci-
fied : — but it should be noted that this Joan was one of the daughters
and coheirs of Thomas Basset, Walter's Cousin ; which Thomas
had, as was said, the Manors of Collinton and Witeford by gift of
Walter's Father. 186

In 1230, 1231, and 1232, Walter de Dunstanvill was acquitted,

1,8 Dodsworth, toI. 42, fo. 149, quoting
Pl<M&a<fe2tanco, Easter Term, 14Hen.HI,
Surrey. — The original Boll is lost.

w Claw, ii, 74.
m Ibidem, 179.
m Dodaworth, toI. 42. fo. 160.

ID8ALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

293

in respect of one Fee in Ideshale, of the Scutages of Bretagne,
Poitoa and Elvein. 127

In 1235-6, towards the AuxUium for marriage of the King's
Sister, this Walter paid three merks on one-and-a-half Knights 1 *
Fees in Shropshire and 16*. 8d. on one Lesser Fee at Tehidy in
Cornwall. 1 * 8

In 1238, he pays a fine of 20*. through the Sheriff of Shropshire
for license to compound some law-suit.

About 1240-1, he is returned among the Shropshire Feudatories
as holding one-and-a-half Knight's-Fees in capite of the King.
Ideshale alone is specified as the locality of the Tenure, but I
presume that Adderley was included in the estimate of service
due.™

On Aug. 21, 1241, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) was deceased, for
then did the King, at Chester, receive the homage of Walter his
son and heir ; and Mandate issued to the Sheriff of Shropshire to
take security from the said heir for due payment of his Relief
(£100) ; — to give him seizin of his lands ; — and to certify the Sheriff
of Wiltshire of such security being found, so that the latter, who
also had the King's Mandate on the subject, should give further
seisin of the lands which lay in his County. 180

The memory of Walter de Dunstanvill (II), to whom I return for
a moment, is not associated with works of piety. The Chartulary
of Wombridge does not, that I can find, mention his name. A
grant which he made to Shrewsbury Abbey was only his part of a
bargain, whereby he recovered the Advowson of Idsall, as will
appear when I come to speak of the Church.

He so far benefited the Abbey of Haghmon as to allow the
Canons a right of road through his land of Adderley when they
were going to, or returning from, Wiche in Cheshire, where
they had some salt-pits. This grant, in which he is styled Gaiter
de Dunstanvill, probably passed soon after^his marriage to Petro-
nilla Fitz Alan, for it purports to be for the health of himself, his

"• Rot. Pip. 14, 15, 16 Hen. Ill, Salop.

m Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 201. The
Shropshire Assessment included Adderley,
I suppose. The Honour of Cornwall, or
Moreton (as it was sometime* called),
consisted chiefly of lesser fees (nUimta
feoda). The value of these lesser fees
was reputed to be two-thirds that of the
II.

greater (quonm iria faoiunt dno)} but
when Scutage was levied at the rate of
2 merks (26*. Sd.) on the greater fees, I
find the lesser usually assessed (as in the
text) at 16*. 84., which is below the exact
proportion.

» Testa de NeviU, p. 46.

» Rot. Fmimm, i, 361.

294

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

wife and heirs, and for the souls of his ancestors and for the soul of
William Fitz Alan (who died about 1210) . 181

One Record says that William Fitz Alan himself gave Iselham
(Cambridgeshire) to his daughter Petronilla as her marriage por-
tion (ad se maritandam) and that she married herself (se maritavit)
to Walter de Dunstanvill. 132 —

The inference is that the marriage took place after Fitz Alan's
death, and we know it to have been completed before 1213, —
exactly the interval in which I should suppose Walter de Dunstan-
vill (II) to have attained his majority.

I have no further notice of his wife Petronilla nor of his haying
left a Widow to survive him. —

Neither have I met with any secular Deed or Charter issued in
his name, except one referred to by Dugdale whereby he, as Walter
de Dunstanvile, gave &c. to Alan Basset the whole Manor of Win-
terborne. — Witnesses : Geoffrey Fitz Piers Earl of Essex, William
Marshall Earl of Pembroke, William Earl of Warren, William Earl
of Ferrers, Warin Fitz Gerold. 188

Of his son and heir, Walter de Dunstanvill (III), succeeding, as
I have shown, in August 1241, we have very full accounts.

Of his relief (£100.) he paid £20. to the King at Winchester,
before Michaelmas 1242, and the balance in 1243. 1S4

About this time he is returned as holding five fees in Bergham
(Sussex) of the Honour of Arundel. 186

In 1245, he was assessed 20*. in respect of one fee in Ideshal to
the Auxilium for marriage of the King's daughter; so also in 1254,
to the Auxilium for making Prince Edward a Knight. 136

In this latter year he was also returned among those who held
twenty librates and upwards of lands in this County. 187

In 29 Hen. Ill (1244-5), he had a grant of Market and Fair in
his Manor of Hydeshale. 188

m Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 4. The
witnesses* names are not given.

« Rot. Eund. ii, 504.

u* Glover's Collections, A, fo. 99. This
deed passed about the year 1212, probably
in the Court of King John, and when
Walter de Dunstanvill attained his ma-
jority. Had it not been for William Earl
Warren's attestation, I should hare hesi-
tated whether to assign the deed to the
second Walter de Dunstanvill or his Father,

so much has it the appearance of an ori-
ginal grant rather than a Confirmation.
The latter, however, it clearly was. It
was sealed with Arms — Fretty, on a dexter
canton a Lion passant.
134 Rot. iSp. 26 & 27 Hen. Ill, Salop.

186 Testa de Nevill, 222, 223.

» Rot. Pip. 29 & 88 Hen. Ill, Salop.

187 Dukes* Antiquities, Introduction,
p. vii.

m Rot. Chart. 29 Hen. Ill, memb. 2.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

295

In 1255, his Tenure of the Wiltshire Hundred of Heytesbury is
the subject of a full return, as also are his interests in other parts
of the County. 139

In 1257,he was called upon as one of the Barons-Marchers to assist
Hamo Le Strange on the borders of Montgomeryshire. He had
Military summons to meet the King at Chester on July 1, 1258, to
oppose the hostilities of the Welsh, and in 1260 was ordered to
become resident in the Marches for the better security of those
parts. 140

In the same year he had quittance of the Scutage of Wales in
respect of his Shropshire Fee. 141

He had Military Summons to be at Hereford on January 9, 1263,
to oppose the incursions of the Welsh, and again to be at Ludlow
on February 9 following. 142

On the 14th of May 1264, he fought on the Rebels' side at*Lewes,
a transgression which was pardoned by Letters Patent issued in the
name of the captive King on April 16, 1265. 14S

The following month, the King, being at Hereford, was simi-
larly assumed to have appointed him Governor of Salisbury
Castle. 144

Whatever the pains visited upon his disloyalty no long* or per-
manent forfeiture was the result.

He died on January 14, 1270, and an Inquisition held forthwith
at Castelcombe reported him to have so died, seized of the Wiltshire
Manors of Cumbe, Colerne, Sterte, Hurdecote, and Heytesbury, —
that Petronilla his daughter was his next heir, and would be twenty-
two years of age on February 22 following; and that she was
already married to Robert de Montfort.

The Inquisitions of other Counties do not seem to be preserved,
but on February 11, 1270, the King's Writ issued to the Escheator
extra Trent, ordering him to give seizin of all Dunstanvill's lands to
" Robert de Montfort, who had married Petronilla, daughter and
heir of the deceased ." 14S

The Charters in which the last Walter de Dunstanvill's name

» Bot. Bund, ii, 232, &c.
140 Dugdale't Baronage, i, p. 591.
U1 Bot. Pip. 44 Hen. Ill, Salop.
143 Dugdale** Baronage, i, p. 691.
*• "* Bat. Pat 40 Hen. III.
"* Glover's Collections, A, fo. lib. The
printed Calendar of Inquisitions gives this

as an inquiry on the estate of " William
de Dunstanvill."

Dugdale has represented Petronilla^
age to hare been twelve instead of twenty-
two, which would hare made her a Wife
when only eleven yean old, and a Mother
before she was sixteen.

296

GENEALOGY OF DE L'ISIjE,

Humphrey de Insula, Domesday Lord of
Castle-Comb, Winterburne, and twenty -
fire other Manors in Wiltshire.
Occurs 1065, 1091.

Ralph Basset, Justice of England =^
Occurs 1115, 1122.

Gilbert Basset, supposed younger =r=
Son of Ralph. Occurs 1130.

Walter de Pinkney.
Occurs circa 1145.
Murdered circa 1147.

Thomas Basset "of Hedendon"
Occurs 1158.

Sheriff of Oxfordshire 1164.
Living 1179. Obiit circa 1181.

Alice de DunstanrilL
SupcrtUt 1186.

Egelina (de :
Courtney).

Gilbert Basset.
Oocurs 1182.
Living April
1205.
Defunctu*

Dec. 1205.

Thomas Basset '
" of Colinton."
Obiit 1220.

1st husband :
Thomas de
Verdon.
Obiit 1199.
&.p.

:Eustachia :
Basset,
daughter
and sole
heir.

Philippe, daughter
and coheir of
William Malbanc.

I
=t= Alan Basset

"of Wycombe"

and Winterburn.

Oocurs 1194-1282.

Basset of Wycombe.

2d husband, Henry de

Richard de Newburgh,

Camvill. Earl of

Married in Warwick.

1199. Obiit 1229.

Philippa

Alicia = William

Basset.

Basset. Malet.

Had Livery

Inmtpia Defknctmi

1220.

1220. 1229.

William Longespee, son

of William Earl of

Salisbury.

Slain in Palestine 1250.

Idonea de Camvill,
sole daughter and heir.
Of full age 1226,

Willam Longespee =f=Maud, daughter of=2d husband, John Gilford

Obiit 1267.

Walter de Clifford, of Brimmesfield.

297

DUN8TANYILL, AND BASSET.

• • * • de Pinkney=f=Adelma de Insula, daughter and sole heir =r= Reginald de Dunstanrifl.

ReUata 1124. Living 1130. | Defunct** 1124.

>iwimwiw » w » w<i«w»i«www(w««»w»»

Robert de Dunstanyill alias Robert

Fits Reginald.

Occurs 1141. Obiit circa 1167.

Alan de Dunstanyill, Lord of =f=

Idsall, Ac.

Occurs 1141. DeflmcUu 1166.

Walter de Dunstanyill (I)
Ocean 1166.
OtiU circa 1195.

:Hawise alios Sibil
des Preaux.
Occurs 1194.
Svperstes 1280.

2d husband,
Engeram dee
Preaux.
Occurs 1190.
Defunotua 1229. 1216.

Alan de
Dunstanyill.
Occurs
1186, 1189,

: • • • • coheir of
Emma de Langetot.
Nat* 1165.
Occurs 1185.

2dhus-=* * •
band Basset.
Widode
Creoun.

I
:1st husband Walter de Dunstanyill (II):

Albert de Infra mtatem 1206.

Greeley. Harried before April 1218.

Obiit circa In Poitou 1214.

1179. Obiit circa Aug. 1241.

: Petronilla Cecily

daughter de Dun-

of William stanyill.

Fitz Alan Defuncta

(II). 1208.

: William, son
of John, son
of Osmund
Basset.

Johanna :

= Reginald de

Basset.

Yalletort.

Had

Oeeursl280.

Liyery

Obiit 1246.

122a

9.p.

Occurs

1230.

Robert de :
Qresley.
NaUu circa
1175.
Obiit 1280.

L 'J

8 daughters
(unnamed).

Walter de Dun-
stanrill (III).
Had Liyery
21 Aug. 1241.
Obiit 14 Jan.
1270.

=f= 1st wife, Dionisia.
2d wife Rohese.
dupentes 1279.

1st husband, Robert de Montfort
Liring 11 Feb. 1270, Oot. 1272.
Defunct** 1274.

• Petronilla de Dunstanyill
sole daughter and heir.
Nata 22 Feb. 1248.
Occurs as a widow 1274
Occurs 1284.
Defuncta 1292.

: 2d husband,
John de la Mar©.
Occurs 1292.
Obiit 1318-4.

William de Montfort.
Infra atatcm 1292.
Sold Idaall 1809-10.

298

ID8ALL, OB 8HIFFNAL.

occurs are very numerous. From the Wombridge Chartulary I
select the following. —

1. The Charter wherein Sir Walter de Dunstanvill is Grantee
of Richard de Grenhull in a Mill at Grenhull, and which passed
between 1241 and 1249. 146

2. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill first granted the
said Mill to Wombridge Priory, and which seems to have passed
between 1260 and 1265. 147

3. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill Tercius again
grants the same, and which probably passed between 1265 and
1269. 1 * 8

4. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill grants to the
same the assart which Gilbert Bluet once held of him, with an
acre of wood near thereto, and house-bote, hay bote and free pannage
in all out- woods belonging to the Manor of Ydeshall ; — at a rent
of 3*. U9 This and the three following deeds I should suppose to
have passed about 1269.

5. The Charter whereby the same grants to the same a piece of
land and wood near the assart of John Stiventon containing twelve
acres. 160

6. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill Tercius grants
to the same all his part of that wood which was in dispute between
him and Thomas Tuschet (Lord of Lee-gomery). 161

7. Charter of the same to the same granting his side of a certain
rivulet which ran between the wood of the Canons of Wombridge
and the Grantor's wood of Snelleshull (Snedshill), also that wood
which was in dispute between the Grantor and Grantees, and

148 Wombridge Chartulary, TU. Ore*
hul 9 No. i. — Witnesses: Sir John Dun-
stanvill (probably Brother of the Grantee),
Sir Walter de Hugford, Sir Richard de
Sanford, the Lord Prior of Wombridge,
Sir Walter de Kemberton, Sir Yvo de
Brocton. (Vide Supra, p. 92.)

147 Ibidem, No. xi. — Witnesses : Sirs
William deHugford,Roger de Pyvelesdon,
Walter de Pedwarthin, Knights j Ralph
de Stanford (probably Sanford), John de
Prese, Thomas de Brocton, Roger Bees
(Begesore) of the same, Robert Corbet
(of More ton), John de Stiventon.

148 Ibidem, No. ij. — Witnesses: Sir
Robert de Halegtone, Sir John Fitz Hugh,
Sir Walter de Pedwrthyn, Sir John Fitz

Aer, John deErcalwe, John de Stiventon,
Herbert de Wyke.

140 Ibidem, Tit.LegaVriorisetldethaU^
No. iij. — Witnesses : Sirs John de Erea-
lew, John Fitz Aer, John Fitz Hugh,
Walter de Pedewardin, Knights ; Thomas
Corbet of Hedleg, Robert de Staunton,
John de Stivinton.

140 Ibidem, No. iiij. — Witnesses: Sirs
William de Hugford and most of the last,
also Robert Corbet of Morton, John de
Stiventon Bailiff of EdeshaU (Idsall),
and Oliver de la Knoll.

W1 Ibidem, No. xlj. — Witnesses : same
as No. iij (note 149), adding Michael de
Morton and Herbert de Wyke.

IDSALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

299

license to make a stank and water-banks (agistiamenta aquae) on
his land of Stamford in Watlingstrete, &c. us

In the nature of a Monastic Charter is the Convention, which in
32 Henry III (1247-8), this Walter de Dunstanvill, Lord of
Ideshale, came to with Nicholas Abbot of Buildwas, and the
Convent thereof. Thereby the Abbot, &c. conceded to Walter
and his heirs the vill of Upton which they (the Monks) had from
Alan de la Zuche. Walter and his heirs were in turn to pay the
Abbot and his Successors a-half-yearly rent of 20$. at the Church
of Ideshale, and he charges the said rent on the following of his
free-tenants, viz. on Herbert de Wyke 17*. per annum, for a virgate
which he held in Wyke ; on Richard de Castello Ss. for a virgate
which he held at the Castle ; on Thomas Golding 5*. for half-
a- virgate in Wyke ; on the Prior of Wombridge 2s. for an assart
in Lega; on Robert the Provost 4*. for half-a- virgate in Wyke;
on John Mugleston 3*. for ten acres at Woodhouse; and on Oliver
de Enolle 1*. for a virgate in Knolle.

Besides these rent-charges Walter quit-claimed to the Abbot, &c.
a rent of 4*. which he was used to receive from said Abbot, &c.
for the heath of Hathtone (Hatton); he gave them also pasture for
800 of their sheep (reckoning by the long hundred), being at their
granges of Hatton and Ruckley, within these boundaries (except
in corn and meadowland), viz. from the land of Hattone along the
King's highway which leads from Bishopeswey to the vill of Upton,
and thence along the same road to Stauntone, and so under
Stauntone along the ditch which is called Sparkmore, descending
down to Wornh (Worf ) and thence to Ruckley -bridge.

A Charter of general confirmation to Lewes Priory is rubricated
in the Chartulary of that House as the Deed of this Walter.
Thereby he concedes the land of Nytembre for the souls' health of
himself, his wife Dionisia, and his Ancestors, who before gave the
said land. He also concedes the Church of Wynterburn, the tithes
of Scaldeford (Shalford), a pension of 20*. receivable by the Priory
from the Rector of the Church of Bernham, and the Chapel of
Gretham. 154

"■ Ibidem, No. xix. — Witnesses: ex-
actly as No. iij (note 149).

« Mot. Cart. 20 Edw. I, n. 41, per
Inspex. The original is printed Mo-
narticon, y, 357; v; as inspected by
Petronilla de Montford, Dunstanyille's

daughter, about the year 1274. The
witnesses belong to her Inspeximus.

U4 Cotton Vespasian, F, xv, fo. 126.—
Carta Walteri tertii de Donstanvilla.
Walter de Dunstanyill (III) may hare had
a kind of seigneury at Winterburne and

300

IDSALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

Some Manorial Deeds of this Walter de Dunstanvill shall be
given under Upton, to which Township they probably refer. I
should here state, that, as by the last recited Charter, the name of
one of his wives was Dionisia, so must he have been married more
than once ; for the name of his widow and last wife was Rohese.

The latter appears to have had her dower in Great Iselham
(Cambridgeshire) . She was living in 1279, when Master Giles de
Bridport, her Tenant at Iselham, is returned as holding the Manor
under her, whilst she had held it of the heirs of Walter de Dun-
stanvill, and they of the heirs of Fitzalan. 155

Petronilla, daughter and sole heir of the last Dunstanvill, was, at
her Father's death, wife of Robert de Montfort, who thus in her
right became Lord of Idsall and other great estates. These he
enjoyed not long for he was deceased in the year 1274.

In the interval, that is at the County Assizes of September 1272,
Robert de Montfort was returned by the Brimstree Jurors, as a
defaulter in due attendance. 156

As Robert Monteforde Lord of Ideshale, and for the souls' health
of himself, his wife Petronilla, and all his children and Ancestors,
he granted to Wombridge some small additions to Walter de Dun-
stanvill' s grants, in the wood of Wyke, and in the direction of
Stirchley-wood. 157

Robert de Montfort dying, as I have said, in or before 1274, his
wife Petronilla had sole Livery of her estates. 168

It was probably during her widowhood, that Petronilla de Mont-
ford inspected and confirmed her Father's agreement with Buildwas
Abbey, as before recited. 169

Her eldest son William de Montfort was, at the time of his
Father's death, and for long after, a Minor. Petronilla very soon
remarried to John de la Mare*

Shalford, bat clearly nothing mora This
deed is attested by Sir William de Wye-
tereston, Hugh * * turmi, Ralph de
Stapeham, Henry le Flemeng, &c. whose
names, not belonging to Shropshire, do
not enable me to judge of its date.

» Hot. Hund. ii, 497, 604. The entry
which describes another Tenant as then
holding under Walter de Dunstanvill him-
self is a mere inaccuracy of expression.

™ PlacUa Corona, 56 Hen. Ill, memb.
22 dorso.

W Chartulary, Tit. Lega Priori*, <fc.
No. 1. — Witnesses: John de Stiventon,
Herbert de Wyke, Walter Marescall,
Oliver de Knoll, Richard Pater -Noster.

158 Dugdale's Baronage, i, p. 691.

w Rot. Cart. 20 Ed. I, n. 41. The
witnesses of Petronilla f s deed were Sir
Henry de Pembruge (of Tong), Sir Walter
de Pedwardin, Sir John Fits Philip (of
Bobbington), Sir Hugh de Weston,
Knights; Malcolm de Harley, Master
John de Cherlton.

IDSALL, OR 8H1FFNAL.

301

In 1284, under the name of Petronilla de la Mare, her liberties
in regard to the Forests of this district seem to have been matter
of inquiry. 160

At the time of the County Assizes, October 1292, Petronilla
being dead, John de la Mare was questioned as to his right of
having Assize of bread and beer, Stocks, infangthef, a fair, a market,
and free-warren in the Manor of Ideshale. His Attorney pleaded
that John de la Mare was Tenant of the Manor by the Law of
England ; that it was of the inheritance of William de Montfort,
without whom, as being under age, he would not answer. The
Crown prosecution was therefore ordered to remain till William de
Montfort should come of age.

At the same Assizes " Petronilla de Montfort'a " former Tenure
in Ideshall was returned as worth £80 per annum. 161

In 3 Edw. II (1309-10), John de la Mare, of Bradwell (as he
was called from his own estate in Essex), was still holding Idsall,
by courtesy of England, when William de Montfort sold the Manor
to Bartholomew de Badlesmere, 162 who indeed purchased from him
Adderley, and all, or almost all, his other estates.

About four years later, viz. in 7 Edw. II (1313-14), died John de la
Mare ; — and thus ends a history of nearly two centuries, which con-
nected the Manor of Idsall with the name and race of Dunstanvill.

I will follow the subject no later, except to remark that, coin-
cidently with its change of Lords, the Manor appears to have been
first described by its other name of Shiffnal. Thus Bartholomew
de Badlesmere, in 9 Edward II, obtained a Charter to hold two
Fairs in his Manor of " SufFenhale," and a contemporary grant of
free-warren in his Manor of "Ideshale." 16S

The Genealogy which I have given for Dunstanvill is so different from one which
rests on other authority that I cannot quit the subject without stating some points
at least in what I will for the present assume to be an authentio account. —

100 Calendar of Inquisitions, vol. i,
p. 85.

m Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, memb.
28, 22. Mr. Dukes' account (pp. 141,
193) would make it appear that Petronilla
was living at the time of these Assizes.

John de la Mare had himself obtained
the King's Charter of Free Warren in
11 Edw. I (1283), and for the following
Manors, viz. Idshalland Adderley (Salop),
Cumbe, Colerne, Sterte, Heytesbury, and

II.

Herdecote (Wilts), Iselham (Cambr.),
and Bergham (Sussex), all his wife's
Manors; also in Mioham (Surrey), Brad-
well (Essex), and Bergholt (Suffolk),
which were his own (Rot. Cart. 11 Edw. I,
No. 24).

162 Dukes' Antiquities, page 194.

168 Rot. Cart. 9 Edw. II, No. 57. The
same document shows Badlesmere to be
Lord of Adderley, Gastlecomb, Colerne,
Heytesbury, Sterte, and Herdecote.

302 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

This is a MS. Pedigree of Dunstanvill, at the British Museum, marked — " P. 4."
It is apparently the work of a Herald, and belonged to, or was written by, one of the
Wriothesleys, three of whom bore office in the College of Arms in the reigns of
Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII. The principal points in which this
Heraldic Pedigree differs from or agrees with the one I offer are these, viz. that
Rainold (Reginald) de Dunstanvill married Atheliza daughter of Reginald de Warren,
Brother of William 2d Earl Warren ; — that said Rainold was Baron of Castelcomb,
that he granted in Waston to Tewkesbury, and that he died 3 April, 2 Hen. II (1156) ;
— that Atheliza his wife died 1 May, 4 Hen. II (1158); that she was buried at
Tewkesbury, and that her heart was buried at Castel-Acre (a Cell of Lewes, in
Norfolk) ; — that the son and heir of Rainold and Atheliza was a second Rainold
de Dunstanvill who died at Wilton in SO Hen. II (1184), and who by his wife
Isabella daughter of R * * * of Tholouse had a son Walter de Dunstanvill, Baron
of Castel-Combe, whose wife was Ursula daughter of Reginald Earl of Cornwall;
that the second Walter de Dunstanvill, son of Walter (I) and Ursula, married
Matilda daughter of William Earl Marescall, and had by her a son and heir, the
third Walter; — that Walter de Dunstanyill (III) married Isabella daughter of
Thomas de Clare Earl of Gloucester (a person whose existence is not elsewhere
recorded), and that their only child Petronilla, married to Robert Montfort, had by
him a Son and Heir, William, who "sold by fine his lands and possessions to
Bartholomew de Badlesmere in 3 Edw. II."

Now there is something in this account which indicates that the Compiler had, to
a certain extent, consulted the same authentic documents as those which I have
quoted in my own narrative. There is something also which implies a reference to
other authentic documents, not indeed specified by the Compiler, nor ever seen by me,
but which for the present we will presume him to have used honestly.
' But this Pedigree involves a third class of assertions, directly contradictory of facts
which I have advanced on what appeared to me sound authority ; and these assertions
are supported by written documents, — by professed copies of original Deeds.

A better primd facie guarantee of honesty could not be offered. Here, then, are
Wriothesley's Vouchers — The first is a Mandate of King John — " John, D. Q-. &c., to
the Sheriff of Wiltshire, greeting. Whereas Reginald late Earl of Cornwall, by fine
levied in our Court at Westminster, in the 8th year of the Lord Richard late King
of England, acknowledged that a moiety of the Manor of Colern and a third part of
the Manor of Addersley in your County, were the right of Walter de Dunstanville
and of Ursula his wife, daughter of the said Earl, Father and Mother of Walter
de Dunstanville now living, and whose heir he (Walter II) is, as a gift in frank
marriage, the which moiety Sir Richard Marischall now holds, and the which third
part aforesaid William Beauchamp occupieth, — We command you, &c., that you make
known to the said Richard and William that they are to appear before our Justices
on the Morrow of All Souls (Nov. 3) if they have aught to say on their parts why
execution of the aforesaid moiety and third part should not be made according to the
aforesaid Concord. And you are to have there the names of those summoned, Ac."

To say that this document does not remain on any existing Roll of John's reign, to
raise a question whether it may not have formed a part of one of the lost Rolls, to
criticize its want of date and other technical informalities, is but to trifle with the
truth. It is a detestable forgery, for Reginald Earl of Cornwall, whom it alleges to
have been Recognizor in a Fine levied in 8 Ric. I (1196-7), died in 1175. 1 ® 4

Whether Wriothesley himself adopted or concocted this document is a matter of
small importance to us now, — a question only as to the credulity or dishonesty of a

,M Almost certainly, too, Walter de Dunstanvill (I) was dead before 8 Ric. I (1196-7).

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 303

very ancient Herald. It suggests however the ides that Vincent and Dugdale may
have derived their information, about the marriage of Walter de Dnnstanvill (I) and
Ursula, from this, or some other equally spurious and too hastily adopted, authority.

The mention of Adderaley in the forged Charter is also curious. The Forger seems
to have had some indistinct knowledge of a place so named having belonged to Walter
de Dnnstanvill, though he did not know that it was in Shropshire, and that Walter
was Lord thereof before 1190.

Another Wriothesley Toucher exhibits " Reginald Earl of Cornwall as releasing an
annual rent of £10, which he had out of the Manor of Combe, to Walter de Dun-
stanville his son-in-law in frank marriage."

Nothing is given whereby we may test the genuineness of this document. It is
rather plausible than otherwise, for Reginald Earl of Cornwall was sometime Lord of
Castle-Combe, and Walter de Dunstanvill, after the Earl's death, obtained the whole
Manor.

The third Voucher runs thus : —

" The Market of Combe was conceded to the first Walter de Dunstanvill by King
Henry II, as is plain by Letters Patent having a cord of red silk (ut patet per litteras
patentea habentes rubeam sericam)."

A grant of Market under Letters Patent of Henry II would, I believe, be a solecism ;
but, passing that question, I find that Cumbe did not belong to Walter de Dunstan-
vill (I) till after the death of Henry II.

The fourth document says, that " the Market of Colern on Fridays was granted to
Walter son of the aforesaid Walter, by King Henry III."

The Charter Rolls of that King do not, I think, corroborate this statement.
However, it may be true.

The fifth Voucher is a deed —

" Know all men, Ac., that I, Walter Secundus de Dunstanville, for a marriage to be*
had between Robert de Dunstanvill my Nephew, son of John my Brother, and Gracia
de Bohun, sister of the venerable Lord, Earl of Hereford, have given, Ac., to the said
Gracia £50. of rents issuing out of the Manors of Colerne and Heytesberye in Com.
Wiltes, to hold all her life in name of dower. The witnesses are Robert de Dunstan-
ville my younger Brother, Roger de Budeston, Reginald de Fyloppe."

This Charter is in itself suspicious, and more so from its appearance in bad
company. The testing clause is introduced in a manner not in use in the thirteenth
Century. It was very unusual for a Grantor to be so minute in describing relation-
ships, however such a practice might suit the convenience of later Genealogists. —

I doubt much whether the second Walter de Dunstanvill had two, or even
one Brother.

The sixth and last document informs us that —

" The Market of Heytesbeiy was conceded to Walter de Dunstanvill and Dame
Matilda his wife, daughter of William Marescall Earl of Pembroke, by King John m
his 16th year, as appears by Letters Patent and Charter marked thus " — (a mark is
here added indicating the original documents implied).

Here again we have a genealogical statement quite unusual to a grant of Market.
Moreover, it is almost certain that the Earl of Pembroke of this period had no such
daughter as Matilda, thus announced. However, in this case, as a consequence of a
date being given, we are enabled to refer to the enrolment of King John's Charter. —

It is found to have passed at Marlborough on Feb. 7, in his sixteenth year (1215).
It is enrolled both on the Close and Charter Rolls. 16 *— Not a word does either Copy
of the Grant say about Matilda or any other wife of the Grantee !

11 Claus. i, 186 j Rot. Chart, p. 205 (Hardy).

304

IDS ALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

We may here dismiss this tissue of falsification and forgery. That very ancient
School of Heraldry which originated such documents is perhaps extinct. Genealogy
and Heraldry, apart from their moral and historical uses, are degraded studies. 1 "
How can that be of moral use which perverts truth, and ministers to the worst form
of family pride ? How can that be an available element of History which poisons the
very fountains of History itself ?

The Manor of Idsall involved many Townships or Members,
held by Tenants of various rank and importance. Before I speak
of any of these I will give account of —

EVELITH—

which, though locally situated within Idsall Manor, is not known
ever to have been a member thereof.

Its Domesday status is very uncertain. Our next subsequent
notice of it would make it a separate Manor, or associate it with
Hatton rather than Idsall.

We have still later and stronger indications that it was an out-
lying Member of Moreton (now Moreton Corbet). If this were
the case at Domesday, Turold will have been its first Norman Lord
•and Hunnit and Uluict his Tenants ; but that Record makes no
mention of any outlying member of Moreton. Such an omission
is however by no means negative of the connexion. 167

The Tenure was perhaps at Domesday a complex or a disputed
one. In a case of such uncertainty it is better to follow the rule
suggested by situation. I therefore treat of Evelith under Idsall.

I have set forth under Hatton the Deed whereby Adam Traynel
of Hatton granted to his Nephew Ivo, "his Manor of Ivelith as well
in Ivelith as in Hynynton, at an anuual rent of a red rose." —

I have treated this Deed as one of debatable antiquity, but to
which I was myself inclined to assign a very ancient date, viz. the
earlier half of the twelfth Century.

In the end of that Century, we have several notices of Evelith

106 For some remarks on the falsification
of written documents I refer to Mr. Blake-
way's Preface to the Sheriff's of Shropshire
(page vi) ; also to the same Author (His-
tory of Shrewsbury \ vol. i, p. 309, note)
for a statement of the moral uses of
Genealogical research.

167 It is the general rule of Domesday

to mention by name any such outlying
members of a Manor as may have lain
in another Hundred. As regards More-
ton and Evelith this rule would not apply;
for, whether we consider Evelith a member
of Moreton or of Idsall, it was equally
within the district described in Domesday
as Bascherch Hundred.

ID8ALL, OR SfllFFNAL. 305

or its owners ; but none of them connected in any manner with
the said Deed. — This, by the way, is a farther reason for attributing
to that Deed a greater antiquity.

I will now notice indifferently, except as regards chronology, the
circumstances which exhibit Evelith as a member of Moreton rather
than of Idsall.

Hunnit with his Brother (Uluiet) held Mortone in Saxon times.
At Domesday they still continued to hold it, but under Turold its
Norman Lord. I have mentioned, under Willey, that several Manors
which were thus held by Hunnit and Uluiet at Domesday were after-
wards held by Toret (another Saxon) and by Toretfs descendants. 168

Thus it was with Moreton and with Evelith, for Toret and his
representatives will appear to have held Moreton under Turold or
his representatives ; and Evelith was eventually, if not primarily,
held in the same feudal ratio.

Toret the Saxon, living in the time of Edward the Confessor,
noticed in Domesday, and surviving in the early part of the 12th
Century, was undoubtedly the progenitor of a family which took its
name of Toret or Fitz Toret from him. Whether Peter Fitz Toret
who lived in the last half of that Century was the grandson or great-
grandson of Toret, I will not attempt to decide. His son he can
hardly have been. 169

From the year 1160 to the year 1194, the name of Peter Fitz
Toret is constantly occurring in connexion with Shropshire places or
Shropshire men ; but in far the greater number of instances this
Peter appears as a follower, a witness to the deeds of, or as a Knight
of Walter de Dunstanvill (I) Lord of Idsall. But it is more than
probable that he was Dunstanvill's Tenant, not indeed at Evelith,

m Supra, page 40.

m Nothing has been a more fruitful
source of genealogical paradox than the
mistaken idea which some Writers seem
to have entertained with regard to the
personal nomenclature of the twelfth Cen-
tury. The Norman Aristocracy of that
period adopted a system which, though in
idea patronymic, was in practice anything
else. In short, if I may coin the words,
it was equally aoonymic or proavonymic t
or something higher still.

Thus (and merely for example), if we
hear of Corbet before Domesday, and of
richer or Odo at Domesday, and then
hear of Soger Fits Corbet in 1160, or of

Robert Fitz Aer (Alcher), or Roger Fitz
Odo in 1165, — and if we forthwith con*
elude that the last three were sons of the
first three, we shall probably be only in
degree less mistaken than those who might
conclude that Peter Corbet, or Hugh Fitz
Aer, or William Fitz Odo, of the fourteenth
oentury, were also Sons of the same ori-
ginal founders of a race.—

The term "Alius" or "Fitz," as gene-
rally used in the twelfth Century, means
"descendant o£" not "son of;"— but in
some exceptional cases a strictly patrony-
mic nomenclature, like that of the Welsh,
seems to hare obtained among the
Normans.

306

IDSALL, OR SH1FFNAL.

but 4t Hem and Hinnington and perhaps elsewhere. Of that we
shall have to speak hereafter.

Here it should be noticed how that in some late appearances of
Peter Fitz Toret he is accompanied by Philip and Bartholomew
his sons, how also, in the latest of all, Bartholomew alone is his
Father's attendant.

The inference is that Philip died in his Father's lifetime and
without issue, for Bartholomew certainly succeeded to Peter.

As I have thus far been able to connect Peter Fitz Toret with
Dunstanvill, Lord of Idshall, rather than with Evelith, so now shall
I show Bartholomew Fitz Toret rather in association with Evelith
than with Dunstanvill or Idsall.

On April 23, 1200, Emma Fitz Roger is suing, at Westminster,
Bartholomew Fitz Peter, the Tenant, for one carucate of land in
Ivelithe, under writ of mart d'ancestre. The Recognizors making
default, the cause was adjourned till the King's Justices should
be in those parts. 170

I find no conclusion of this suit, but during the next thirty-five
years one Gerard Fitz Toret is frequently occurring in this neigh-
bourhood either under that name or as Gerard de Ivelith. He,
I doubt not, was a younger Brother of Bartholomew, and also his
Under-Tenant at Evelith.

He has already been mentioned as attesting grants of Roger la
Zouche and Philip de Burwardsley to Buildwas, and also a Brockton
deed of William Cocus.

Furthermore, Bartholomew de Moreton (that is Bartholomew Fitz
Toret or Fitz Peter) and Gerard de Yvelith attest a grant which
Richard, son of Richard Corbet (Bartholomew's Son-in-law), made
to Buildwas Abbey before 1225 ; m and in 1229 both witnesses again
appear in company, and, as Knights, superintending a Convention
to which Madoc de Sutton was a party. 172

Bartholomew Fitz Toret appears to have deceased before 1235.

w Rot. Ourut Regit, vol. ii, p. 199.
Two of the Recognizors named as De-
faulters were Robert de Belmes and
Nicholas de Bolinchall (Boningale).

w Monatticon, v, 358, No. ix. The
additional witness is supplied from the
original Roll.

CT Charter in possession of Mr. George
Morris. This Convention, as well as the
last-named Buildwas Deed, are also at-

tested by Geoffrey de Foleville, a Knight,
and whose concern in this neighbourhood
I cannot particularize. I cannot however
help connecting the name with that of
Baldwin de Frolavill, or Fredevill, and
Roger de FreteTille, or Frala- Villa, whom
we have seen with Peter Fitz Toret and
his Sons attesting Walter de Dunstanvill' s
Deeds of the previous Century.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

307

I omit to say here much that still remains to be said of his Ancestry
and Succession both in this and other Counties. His Shropshire
estates passed with his daughter to Richard Corbet of Wattles-
borough, her husband, and in course of time to Robert Corbet their
Son. Robert Corbet, Lord of Wattlesborough, &c. in right of his
Father and of Moreton Toret (afterwards Moreton Corbet) and
Evelith, in right of his Mother, had succeeded before 1255. His
connection with Evelith made him frequently a visitant here and
probably an occasional resident, for he certainly held the estate
partly in demesne. We have seen him attesting the Charters of
Walter de Dunstanvill (III) Lord of Idsall, and his name appears
in other Deeds concerning this neighbourhood.

At the County Assizes (September 1272), the Brimstree Jurors
reported that John Ivelithe had broken open the Orange of Robert
Corbet. The accused was outlawed. 173 The Tenure- Roll of 1284,
commonly known as "Kirby's Quest/' says under Brimstree
Hundred that " Robert Corbet holds one virgate in Yevelye of the
Lord of Moreton "Tubaud/ but that the Inquisition (from which
the Roll was framed) did not mention whom the said Lord (of
Moreton) held under." —

That the Scribe who wrote this entry meant to present by
" Moreton Tubaud," the place at first called Moreton Toret and
afterwards Moreton Corbet, is evident, and his ignorance of the
seigneural Lord is compensated by the entry under Moreton itself,
where it is said that, — " Robert Corbet holds the vill of Moreton
with its members, viz. Preston in Pymhill Hundred (t. e. Preston
Brockhirst), and Ivelithe in Brimstree Hundred, under Reginald
de Chetewinde, and he (Reginald) holds under Richard Fitz
Alan." 17 *

A Tenure-Roll of Bradford Hundred, made not three years later
than the last, repeats the same statement, substituting " Ivelynton "
for " Ivelithe," " Roger de Chetwene " for " Reginald," and adding
that " Richard Fitz Alan holds (over Chetwind) of the King in capite
by half a Knight's Fee, and that the Manor is geldable." 175

I have said, under Willey, that the usual representative of Turold's
Domesday Interest is found to be De Chetwynd in the next succeed-
ing period. Here is an instance of that fact, as well as of the

w PlacUa Corona, 66 Hen. Ill, Salop,
memb. 23.

i" Kirty* Qaerf.— Bradford Hundred
— (where Moreton was).

171 Tenure Boll, in my possession.

308

IDSALL, OR SH1FFNAL.

farther observation that Hunnit was relatively succeeded by the
descendants of Toret.

At the Assizes of October 1292, Robert Corbet was questioned
as to the right of Free -Warren exercised by him at Ivelyth.

He adduced a Royal Charter of Free- Warren in Morton Corbet
and Wattlesburgh, and averred that Ivelith was an appurtenance of
Moreton. But Hugh de Louther (the Crown Prosecutor), asked
that Judgment should be given for the King, because that Ivelyth
was not named (in the said Charter), and was distant from Moreton
as much as ten leagues. The Court decided that the aforesaid
land of Ivelyth should be deprived of Warren (dewarrenetur), and
found Corbet to be in mtiericordid. 176

An Inquisition on the death of tlobert Corbet of Moreton, was
ordered by ^rit of Nov. 14, 1300. The return is sadly defaced, but
is sufficiently legible to show him as having held " Ivelith under
John de Chetwynd." 177

A Chapel existed some time at Evelith. Its site was pointed
out at the close of the last Century. 178 —

A field adjoining the spot where the Manor House formerly stood
is still known as the " Chapel Yard."

HINNINGTON.

This was undoubtedly a member of the Domesday Manor of
" Iteshale." It was subsequently held under the Lords of Idsall,
by the same men who held Evelith under the Chetwynds.

Perhaps Hunnit or Hunninc, the usual predecessor of Toret and
Corbet, was also their predecessor at Hinnington. The latter name,
anciently written Hunnington, indicates almost as much. If so, this
is one of a very few instances where a Saxon of so late an era as
the reign of the Confessor, can be supposed to have given its name
to any Shropshire locality.

Adam TrayneFs very early grant to his Nephew Ivo, conveys the
Manor of Evelith, as if Hinnington were part and parcel thereof.
That Deed however, probably in consequence of its great antiquity,
can be coupled with no other known fact, either as regards the
succession of Traynel or of Hunnit.

" e Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, memb.
28. The Charter of Free Warren adduced
by Corbet was granted on March 20, 1284
(Rot. Cart. 12 Edw. I, memb. 49). It

extended only to his demesne lands in
Morton-Corbet and Watlesburg.

CT Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 46.

V" Blakeway MSS.

JDSALL, OR SHIFPNAL. 300

I have alluded to the very frequent attestations of Pitz Toret and
his descendants, which are found in Dunstanvill Deeds. These may
chiefly be attributed to Peter Fitz Toretfs tenure of Hinnington
and Hem, under the Lords of Idsall. That Baldwin de Hinetun,
whoi with John his Son, attests the Charter of Walter, Son of John
de Hemes, to Buildwas, was probably Fitz Toret's Under-Tenant
at Hinnington. 179 —

The said Charter passed before 1202, and in the succeeding
period I find John de Hinitun attesting a deed which will be given
under Upton. I find no other mention of Under-Tenants here,
but the Inquisition taken on the death of Robert Corbet of
Moreton, in 1300, says expressly that he held Hemme and Hynyton
under John de la Mare. 180

And a later Inquisition, taken May 7, 1310,, on the death of
Thomas Corbet of Moreton, is still more explicit. He died seized
of the " Hamlets of Hemme and Hynyton, within the Manor of
Ideshale, which were held of Sir John de la Mare, Lord of Ideshale,
by half a Knight's-fee." 181

THE HEM.

Nearly all that can be said of the Tenure of this Hamlet has
been implied under Hinnington. Like Hinnington, it was held
under the Lords of Idsall, perhaps by Hunnit in the first and
Toret in the second instance, but more certainly by Fitz-Toret and
Corbet in the third and fourth.

John de Hemes, and Walter his Son, who granted to Buildwas in
the 12th Century, were probably Peter Fitz-Toret's Under-Tenants
here. Their being also Under-Tenants of Traynel at Hatton, is
only another phase of that inexplicable connection which associates
and at the same time confuses the relative histories of Hatton,
Hem, Hinnington, and Evelith.

We have further seen John de Hemmes attesting between 1192
and 1194 (with Peter Fitz Thoret and his Sons) a Grant of the first
Walter de Dunstanvill, that is, as I take it, the Under Tenant
attesting with the Mesne Lord a grant of the Seigneural Lord of
Hem.

I have little to say more of the family of these Under-Tenants,
which seems to have decreased in importance. At the Assizes of

"* Supra, p. 170. ul Inquisitions, 3 Bdw. II, No. 22.

190 Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 46.

ii. 40

310 IDSALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

January 1256, one John de la Homme sat on the Brimstree Jury.
At the Assizes of September 1272, John le Knicht was found to
have disseized Henry Dud of a messuage in Hemme, and William
de Ruton (Ryton) was a Recognizor on the trial but had made no
appearance.

WYKE.

This was a member of Idsall. About the year 1219, Walter de
Dunstanvill (II) conveys to Shrewsbury Abbey, among other
rents, one of 12rf. payable by Alan the Chaplain, his Tenant in
Wyches. 183

Walter Mareschall and Robert de Wikes were perhaps Tenants
here between 1220 and 1230.

The next Tenant who occurs is Herbert de Wyke a person of some
importance and apparently Bailiff to the Lords of Idsall ; for I take
him to be identical with " Herbert, formerly Bailiff of Ydeshall"
who attests a Wombridge Charter between 1227 and 1240 ; 188 and
Herbert Seneschal of Ideshall is found attesting a deed of very little
earlier date.

In 1248, Walter de Dunstanvill (III) had three Tenants in Wyke
whose Quit- Rents he assigned to Buildwas Abbey in part exchange
for Upton. These were Herbert de Wyke who paid 17*. annual
rent on a virgate, Thomas Golding who paid 5*. on half-a-virgate
and Robert the Provost, who paid 4$. on half-a-virgate. 184 .

For the five years ending October 1254, Herbert de Wyke was
Agistator of the Royal Forest of Morfe and the Haye of Wellington.
He attests deeds of this period as Herbert de Ideshal, and, under
that name, sat as third Juror of Brimstree Hundred at the Assizes
of 1256.

Soon after this he died ; for when, in February 1262, the Justices
of the Forest visited Shropshire they summoned Herbert son and
heir of Herbert de Wyk (or de Ydeshal) to answer for the five
years in which his Father had been Agistator. m

From this period for the next twenty years, I find Herbert de
Wyke and Walter Marshall of Wyke frequent witnesses of local
deeds. Two of these bear date Oct. 21, 1270, and Aug. 9, 1279.

In 54 Hen. Ill (1269-70), Walter le Mareschall of Wyke and
Edith his wife were suing John de Stevinton under writ of novel

m Salop Chartulary, No. 378. | «* Cart. 20 Edw. I, No. 41.

m Chartularj, TU. Upinton, No. clxix. I 1M Placita Forest*, 46 Hen. Ill, Salop.

ID 8 ALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

311

disseizin, for a tenement in Wyke. 186 In November 1271, Herbert
de Wyke occurs as a Verderer of the Royal Forests, and at the
Assizes of September 1272, he and Walter Marescall were Jurors
of Brimstree Hundred. This Jury reported, inter alia, that Alice,
wife of Walter Carter of Routhton, had challenged, in the County
Court, Thomas, son of Herbert de Wyke (probably the Juror's
Brother) and Robert de Duddelegh, for murder of said Walter her
husband. She had also accused the Abbot of Buildwas of har-
bouring the murderers. Alice not appearing at the Assizes the
Abbot and Duddelegh were acquitted, but it was shown that Thomas
Pitz Herbert was dead. 187

Between 1280 and 1292, Herbert de Wyke was succeeded by
his Son John, who sat as 12th Juror. of the Hundred at the
October Assizes of the latter year, and occurs as a witness of
various local deeds, and as a Juror on several Inquests of the next
twenty-four years ; after which Elyas de Wyke, a Clerk, seems to
occupy his position.

Meanwhile, that is on Feb. 23, 1293, a Fine was levied at
Stafford between Master John de Kenleye, Clerk, complainant
(querentem), and Robert de Clone, and Mabel his wife, deforciants,
of a messuage and twenty acres in Wyk, whereof was plea of
convention. The Deforciants, relinquished the same, — to be held by
the Complainant, of the Lords of the Fee. For this he gave £o. im

On Jan. 27, 1297, this same Master John de Kenleye was
Complainant in a fine levied at Westminster, whereby Roger de
Orleton, and Rohese his wife, surrendered to him a messuage
and twelve acres in Ideshale, whereof was plea of warranty ; —
to hold of the Lords of the Fee. For this the Complainant paid
£10. 18 *

TRILWARDYNE.

The name of this Hamlet or Tenement is now lost. Its situation,
however, may be nearly identified, by comparing the different re-
lations in which it is mentioned.

Between the years 1220 and 1250, Robert de Trilwardyne, with
his name spelt in various ways, is a witness of local Charters, more
particularly of those which relate to Brockton.

On July 13, 1253, a Fine was levied at Westminster between

m Fat. 54 Hen. Ill, dorso.
"* Plaeita Corona *6Hen. ID, Salop,
memb. 23 recto.

» • » Pedes Finium, 21 & 25 Edw. I,
Salop.

312

1D8ALL, OR SH1PFNAL.

Petronilla, Widow of Robert de Trillewardyn plaintiff (petentem),
and Robert de Trillewardyn Tenant, of a third part of forty acres
in * * shal (probably Idshal) which Petronilla claimed as reason-
able dower out of the estate of her former husband. Petronilla
renounced her claim, and Robert conceded to her nine acres in the
same vill (viz. three acres in Rudingfeld, three acres in Winterfeld,
and three acres in the field towards Wyk), to hold to Petronilla for
her life, at a rent of one penny. 190

This second Robert de Trillewardyn occurs occasionally as a
witness during the next sixteen years ; but on Sept. 29, 1269, he
would appear to be deceased, for then did Edith, daughter of Robert
de Trillewardine, lease to Wombridge Priory all her land within
and without the vill of Brocton, for twelve years, reserving to her-
self a house and orchard and certain stipulated shares of the produce
of the said land. 191

A great part of the district of which we are speaking had, in
ancient times, been within the jurisdiction of the RoyaTForest. —

The Perambulation of 1300 recognizes the following vills and
hamlets as disforested, viz. the vills of Prioreslegh and Wodehous
(Woodhouse), amoietyofDreyton (nearShiffnal),Haghton (Haugh-
ton), La Cnolle (still traceable in Knowle-Wood), Trillewardyn,
Wyk a moiety of Hem, the wood of Kembrithton (Kemberton),
a third part of Sutton (Maddock), a moiety of Brockton, &c. —

Hence we approximate to the locality of Trilwardyne.

We have seen Master John de Kenleye a purchaser of land in
Wyke and Idsall in 1293 and 1297. On June 8, 1301, Thomas
Skybrass and Burga his wife grant to the same John and his heirs
their capital messuage and forty acres of land at Trillewardyn in
the Manor of Ideshale, which formerly belonged to Ralph de Ken-
leye, Father of Burga, and which constituted her share of his
inheritance ; — to hold of the Grantors and their heirs, rendering
to them yearly a red rose, and accustomed services to the Lords
of the Fee. 193

"° Pedes Finium, 37 Hen. Ill, Salop.

191 Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, Eo. xxviij.
The agreement is attested by John de
Stivinton, John de Grenhull, Master
Banulph de Coleham, Clerk ; Adam Pol-
lard of Lee, Robert his Son, Walter Cocus
of Lee, &c.

m Salop Chartulary, No. 279. Since
writing the above, I learn that two fields

of the Haughton Farm are still known as
the "Big" and "Lesser Tillerdine." They
are nearly in a line between Knowle Wood
and the Wyke, and precisely where I should
suppose the Hamlet of Trilwardyne might
have been.

193 Charter in possession of The Ker.
John Brooke, of Haughton. — It is dated
at Dublin, and attested by four Justices

ID8ALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

313

PRIORS LEE.

The House of Augustine Canons, founded at Wombridge as early
as the reign of Stephen, acquired its first interest in the Lordship
of Idsall under grant of Alan de Dunstanvill.

His gift, described as the land of Eilric de LeiSjWas subsequently
increased. His Son Walter gave AynulPs Lee (less intelligibly
written as " Leias Amulsi") to the Canons.

These two grants, with some later additions, constituted, I sup-
pose, the estate afterwards known as Priors Lee. The Canons
once established in such a position, were not slow to improve it.
They acquired various parcels of land and other rights in adjoining
Townships. Some of these have been already instanced in our
account of the succession of Dunstanvill. Others again will have
to be noticed under their proper localities. One or two shall be
mentioned here. —

About 1260, Thomas, Son of Soger Guest, of Lega, gave the
Priory a noke of land, in the vill of Lega, which John de Mocleston
once held of him. 194

About ten years later, and apparently in completion of a previous
grant of Walter de Dunstanvill (III), Alice, widow of Gilbert
Bluet, quits all right which she had for life in an assart in the
Manor of Ydeshall. For this the Priory paid her 20*. in hand, and
allowed her an annuity of 2*. for her life. 196

Again, about ten years later, Thomas de Brocton (of Brockton
juxta Sutton Madok), gave the Priory an annual rent of 5*. 6rf.,
which Robert, called Pollard, of Priors Lee and his heirs were
bound to pay on half-a-virgate in the said vill of Priors Lee. The
Canons were to apply this income as follows, viz., 2s. to the work
of the fabric (the conventual buildings), 2s. to the lights in their
Church, and 1*. 6tf. to the Convent of the said House, to keep the
anniversary of the Donor for ever. 196

of the King's Bench there. Two teals, ori-
ginally belonging to the deed, are gone.
The writing ia remarkably fine.

IW Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prions, No. xvj .
Attested by Madoe de Sutton, Walter de
Kembricton (he was Hector of Idsall),
Oliver de Knoll, and Roger de Hadeleg.

m Ibidem, No. V. — Witnesses : Adam
Pollard, Robert his Son, Alan de Hale-
heton (Haughton), Walter Cocus, &o.

m Ibidem, No. xlix.— Witnesses : John

de Stivinton, John Son of Herbert de
Wyk, William de Devises, Richard Colle,
Robert de done, Ac. This grant was after-
wards confirmed by John, Son and Heir of
Thomas de Drmjton (read Broetony and
compare, supra, p. 98, note 20). — Wit-
nesses : John de Stivinton, John Herbert
of Wyk, William Pater Noeter, William
Hode of Drayton, Richard Cocus of Legh,
and Roger Cocus.

314 ID8ALL, OE SHIFFNAL.

Previous to the Dissolution, and in 27 Hen. VIII (1535-6), the
Prior of Wombridge returned, among the annual receipts of his
House, the following :

Rents of 7 Messuages in Priores Lees . , . , £8. 19*. 4rf.
Bents of 2 Water-mills and 2 Cottages in Sheffhall .5.6*. 8rf. w

The Total of £14. 6*., thus stated to arise from the Prior's pos-
sessions within the Fee of Shiffnal, is not very inconsistent with
the more detailed Ministers' Accounts of the following year.

In the latter are enumerated £ s. d.

Rents of Tenants-at-will in Shyffenall 8

Rent of Land and Cottage at Prior's Lye . . ..190
Ferm of Land and Messuage at Prior's Lye ... 7 12 2

Ferm of a Mill in Idsall Park 8

Ferm of a Mill at Shiffenall 2

Total . . £14 9 2 1W

LEE PARVA OR LEONARD'S LEE.

This was another member of Idsall, taking its distinctive name
of Leonard's Lee, from an early possessor, the Tenant of Dun-
stanvill.

The situation of the vill is not to be identified by any existing
name. Its whereabout may be however surmised from one or
other of the following particulars. —

At the Forest Assize of 1180, Thomas de Legh fines 1*. 6rf. for
an imbladement (3 acres of oats) within Jurisdiction of the
Forest. 199

This Thomas was I doubt not the same person who under the
name of Thomas de Leis attests one Charter of Walter de Dun-
stanvill (I), and who in another Charter is mentioned as Thomas de
Lehes, and as owner of land near the Grantor's wood of Lehes.

I think also that Walter de Lega and Leonard his Brother, who,
before the year 1194, witness two other Charters of the same
Baron, were sons of this Thomas, attesting in their Father's life-
time ; for at the Forest Assizes of March 1209, both Thomas de
Legh and Walter son of Thomas de Lega, are assessed under what

W Valor JSccletiarticw, iii, 194.

199 MonatHcon, vi, 891, No. ii.

190 Forest Pleas, Salop, No. 1. The
line taken by the Record seems to be Lil-
leshall, Tibberton, Legh (as in the text),

Ketley, and Stirohley. All these, aa well
as Kemberton, Dawley, Lawley, Idsall
(and it* members), and Leegomery, were
within Regard of the Forest of Mount
Gilbert.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 315

is called a " Regard of Mount Gilbert," that is a statement of the
liabilities of those, who living within jurisdiction of the Forest of
the Wrekin, had made purpresture, imbladement, or other encroach-
ment on the King's rights. Thomas de Lee seems to have been
eventually succeeded by his second son Leonard, from whom this
vill derived its distinctive name.

About the year 1219, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) in composition
of the claim which Shrewsbury Abbey had to the Advowson of
Idsail, assigned to the monks 27*. annual rent, chargeable on
several of his Tenants. —

A sum of 2*. receivable from Leonard de Leges in respect of his
fee of Leges was thus assigned. 200

In November 1220, Leonard de Lega was a Juror in the great
suit then pending about the Advowson of Tong.

Soon after this, Osbert Lord of Stirchley, granting a parcel of
land to Wombridge, within the Fee of Stirchley, mentions among
the boundaries of the said parcel a meadow which belonged to
Richard Fitz Ralph of Parva Legh, and a fence which ran between
Leonard's Ley and Stirchley Wood. Sir Leonard de Ley himself
stands first witness to this grant. 901

Another Wombridge Charter which passed in or after the year
1231, is attested by men of knightly degree, and last of all by Leonard
de Lega and Walter his Son. 802

At the same time a deed which will be quoted under Upton, and
which certainly passed in or before 1232, is attested by Walter de
Lega, whom I therefore take to have succeeded his Father about
this time. Ten years later, and we have Henry son of Leonard de
Lega as his Father's, or rather Brother's, Successor; — for on
November 18, 1240, a Fine was levied at Salop between William de
Eyton and Matilda his wife, Plaintiffs, and Henry Fitz Leonard,
Tenant, — of a third part of six acres of lands and two messuages in
Parva Legh, whereof was suit of mart ePaneestre. — William and
Matilda relinquished, for themselves and for the heirs of Matilda, all
right in the premises and in all lands of Henry ; for which the
latter paid them four merks. 908

I should imagine from what follows, that this Matilda was a
Sister or Half Sister of Henry de Legh ; for on January 27, 1249,
Johanna and Nicholaha de Legh, who certainly stood in one of

» Salop Chartulary, No. 87a | m Ibidem, No. ix.

*» Chartulary, TU. Lega Priori*, No. xL | » Pede* Finium y 25 Hen. in, Salop.

316

ID8ALL, OB SHIFFNAL.

those relations to Henry, released, for five merks, some lands in
Stirchley to the Abbot of Buildwas ; 304 and on January 27, 1256,
a Fine was levied between Nichola, daughter of Leonard de Lega,
Plaintiff, and Henry de Leye, Tenant, of two virgates in Parva Legh
whereof was suit at law. Henry surrendered the premises, to hold
to Nichola and her heirs, of the Lords of the Fee. In return Nichola
conceded half the land which she had hitherto held in the same
vill, viz. half-a- virgate which Richard Fitz Ralph (whom we have
heard of before) sometime held, and the messuage which Roger,
Parson of Styrchley, sometime held, and the messuages, &c. formerly
held by Adam Hubert, Alan Hubert, and Richard Stok ; to hold
to Henry and his heirs, of Nichola and her heirs, at a penny
rent. 806

At the same Assizes at which this Fine was levied,* other suits
which concerned the flame family were in progress ; and though
they did not relate to the locality now under notice it will be better
to introduce them here. —

Joanna de Leye and Nichola her Sister sued under writ of
Mori d'ancestre for two merks annual rent in Weston, which
they alleged Leonard their Father to have died seized of, and
which William de Forde withheld from them. The latter offered
a fine of half-a-merk to the Crown that he might have a "good
Assize/' Thomas Boterel and * * * de Overton being his Sureties.
It was found that Leonard had not died thus seized, for that the
rent was the marriage portion of Joanna, Mother of William de
Forde, who after holding it for many years surrendered it to her
said Son for ten merks. The Defendant was dismissed sine die. 906

In another suit, Sibil wife of Henry de Lega appoints the said
Henry her Attorney against Robert de la Forde. This seems to
have been a cause wherein the latter sued the former for a virgate
of land in Preston (on the Wild-moors), and which Sibil and Henry
had by grant of Thomas Rabaz. 207

In Easter Term 1258, a fine was levied at Westminster between
Robert de la Forde, Plaintiff, and Thomas Rabaz, whom Henry and '
Sibil had called to warranty, — of a virgate in Preston, and who
vouched such warranty. — Thomas now acknowledged the right of
Robert, who allowed Thomas to hold the land for life, at a penny

*» • *» Ibidem. 83, 40 Hen. Ill, Salop.

908 Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 8.
It is difficult to determine what Weston
was here alluded to. Aston Botterell,

Overton and Ford, are near together, and
not very far from Oold-Weeton.
907 Ibidem, memb. 1.

IDSALL, OB SHIFFNAL.

317

rent and performing all capital services; — but it was to remain to
Robert and his heirs. 208

About this time Henry son of Leonard de Lega granted to
Wombridge Priory a parcel of land called Blakesicheshurst with
the wood thereon. Its boundaries are described minutely, and
among them are the " water-course of Lestewike under the
grange of Wombridge," and "the road which leads to Blackpull." 809

" Walter son and heir of Henry, son of Leonard de Lega/' reciting
that "Peter, son of Sir Peter de Eyton had granted to the Wombridge
Canons free right of road through his (Peter's) land of Lega, for
all their vehicles," and calling himself (Walter) " a Comportioner
in the same vill of Lega," grants a similar privilege. 210

KNOWLE.

The situation of this vill, formerly a member of Idsall, may be
identified by a small Coppice still called " The Knowl Wood."

It has been seen how the first Walter de Dunstanvill, about the
year 1185, granting to Oliver his Harper a rich marriage and
wardship at Haughton, increased the gift, in terms following : —

" And together with the aforesaid wardship, I have given and
conceded to the aforesaid Oliver, for his homage and service, and as
a forestalment of his release from office (in expectatione Warisonis
sui), that reputed virgate of land which Achi and Swein, of Knoll,
have held, and all the assarts which I have given him in Long
Rudigg, up to Sumerlone, as Smelebroc divides them (the assarts) ;
and quittance of tac and of tol for him and his men ; and (quit-
tance) of all services and customs ; in fee and inheritance ; with all
the appurtenances ; in wood and in field ; to hold of me and my
heirs, by him and his heirs ; rendering therefore yearly, he or his
heirs to me or my heirs, on Easter-Day, certain Spurs (calcaria),
or six pence (in lieu thereof)." 9U

Thus did Oliver, Minstrel of the Lord of Idsall, become not
only a Husband and Guardian (advantages which could entail

908 Pedet Finium, 42 Hen. Ill, Salop.

** Chartulary, !7^. Z^aiViorw, No. vi.
Witnesses : Sir Madoo de Sutton, Philip
de Pres, Thomas Rabas, Adam de Pres-
tone, Ralph do Prestone, Adam Pollard,
Oliver de la Knoll, &c.

n0 Ibidem, No. xt. This Charter pur-
ports to be dated at Wombridge, on St.

II.

Mark'sDay/USEdw. I" (April 25,1286).
It is tested by Roger Corbet, Reginald de
Chernese, Roger Carles, Pagan de Preston,
and John de Appeleie ; a series of wit-
nesses quite inconsistent with the alleged
date. The deed passed after 1300 cer-
tainly, perhaps in 1320 (13 Edw. II).
m Supra, p. 281.

318 IDS ALL, OR SHIFPNAL.

nothing on his heirs) but a Feoffee with more permanent in-
terests.

Under his, as yet unlegalized, name of Oliver, he has been seen
to attest the Deed, whereby his Lord bestowed his body in burial
at Wombridge.

I think too that it must have been his wife or widow who, under
the name of Sibil de Halcton, occurs as holding lands within
Regard of the Forest of Mount Gilbert, in 1209. Be that as it
may, he or his Son or Grandson, under the one name of Oliver de
Knolle, continue to occur for about 90 years in this neighbourhood,
dating from the time of the above Deed.

Besides their attestations of various Charters, one of these suc-
cessive Olivers appears in 1248, as holding a virgate of land in
Knolle, under the third Walter de Dunstanvill, at a shilling rent,
which rent was then transferred to Buildwas Abbey. 212

At the Assizes of 1256, an Oliver de la Knoll officiated as a Juror
for Brimstree Hundred ; and the same or another Oliver de Knoll
attests a Charter of his Lord, Robert de Montfort, between 1270
and 1274.

We have then a Richard de la Knoll attesting a few local Deeds,
and sitting as a Juror (Sept. 25, 1276) on the Inquest which
reported about Robert le Strange's disposal of Sutton Maddock.

From August 9, 1279, to November 12, 1335, 1 find Thomas atte
Knolles, or Thomas de la Knolle, a constant witness of local Deeds,
and on November 1 7, 1336, this uniformity is interrupted by the
occurrence of Pagan de la Knolle in a similar position.

THE CASTLE.

A Tenement, thus entitled, was by no means the residence of the
Lords of Idsall ; but one of the smallest members of the Manor,
still to be traced, as regards name and situation, in the "Castle
Farm."

In 1248, an annual rent of 8*., due from Richard de Castello, on
a virgate of land, to Walter de Dunstanvill (III), was transferred
by the latter to Buildwas Abbey. 218

About the year 1270 Emma, widow of Richard de Castre, and
apparently daughter of Roger de Halaton (Haughton), quits to
Hugh de Halaton (Son of said Roger) the house which her late
Husband bought from said Roger, in the vill of Cnolle, with a
garden and croft adjacent, and two acres of land, one in the field

sw. su cart. 20 Edw. I, No. 41.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

319

of Hopemon, and the other towards the Horeston. She also sur-
renders to the same Hugh three acres of land, which said Roger
had given her in frank marriage} 141

At the Assizes of September 1272, the name of Richard de Castro
was called in question in a matter which concerned several others
in the neighbourhood, but which may be mentioned here as well as
elsewhere, though I am not sure whether Richard himself was living
at the time or whether he had left a successor of both his names.
William, son of Robert de Divises, had been apprehended and im-
prisoned on some charge, but, by precept of the King, had been
given into custody of the following persons (bail for his appearance),
viz. Richard de Castro in Ideshale, Richard Holegode of Chaffenhale
(Shi final), Robert de Lotwych in the same, Robert Bernehoud in
Upton, Roger de Howele in Upton, Henry Bluet in Ideshale, Adam
le Lymer of the same, Adam de Dreyton, Thomas de Brerlakton of
Staunton, Simon de Ideshall, and Richard de Stapenhull in Wode-
hous. Now (1272) these Sureties were reported by the Brimstree
Jurors as not duly producing the accused, so they were found to be
in misericordid, but at the same time the accused was acquitted of

any crime

215

WOODHOUSE.

A rent of 3*. per annum, payable by John Mugleston for twelve
acres in Wodehous, was in 1248 assigned by Walter de Dunstanvill
(III) to Buildwas Abbey. 218

This John de Mocleston has already occurred, about 1260, as a
Tenant in Priors-Lee.

The principal Tenants at Wodehous seem, however, to have had
name from the place.

Sometime in the thirteenth century, Henry de Wodehous appears
to have given towards the lights of the Church of St. Mary and
St. Leonard of Wombridge some land and 6d. rent, which he had
purchased from Richard de Stapenhull 817 (just mentioned under
The Castle) .

This Henry was, if I mistake not, the same person who, under the
name of Henry son of Hamund de Wodehus, was Grantee of Robert
le Strange (of Sutton and Wrockwardine) in the latter Manor.

94 Charter at Haughton. — Witnesses :
John de Styyinton, Herbert de Wyks,
Oliver de Cnolle, Roger Hod (of Drayton) ,
Alan de Halaton, &o.

«* Plaeiia Corona, 66 Hen. Ill, Salop,
memb. 22 dorso.

a « Cart. 20 Edw. I, No. 41.
W Mona9ticon> vi, 388.

820

IDSALL, OR 8H1FPNAL.

This will have been before 1270, but the same person was again
Grantee of Fulk le Strange, of Blackmere and Wrockwardine, at
the end of the Century, and also in 1305. 218

The Family of this Henry would seem to have been originally of
Hadley, but I will say more of him under Wrockwardine, where his
chief property lay.

From July 1296, to May 1306, 1 find one Roger de Wodehous, or
atte Wodehous, doubtless of this place, and a member of almost
every local Jury which sat during that interval.

HAUGHTON.

In 1180, the Township (villata) of Haleton was fined half-a-merk
by Justices of the Forest for purpresture.

About 1185, Roger de Halechtune, Dunstanvill's Vassal here,
being dead, the said Baron granted to " Oliver, his Harper, custody
of the land of the deceased, for his life, together with the Widow of
the said Roger, whom Oliver had already espoused, with Dunstanvill's
consent. Also Oliver was to have custody of the heir of Roger,
and was to take order concerning the said heir according to his own
will. And this wardship was to be free of tac and tol to Oliver and
his men, and free of all services except that Oliver was to mew one
sparrow-hawk annually at his own cost, or to mew a goshawk
(ostorium) at the cost of his Lord, in which case the Lord's men
were to provide a cage wherein the bird should be placed." 219

The remainder of this Charter, so illustrative of feudal tenures
and customs, has been recited under Enowle. The Heir, thus dis-
posed of, seems to have been that Hugh de Haltun whom we shall
see attesting an Upton Deed, before 1232.

Between 1242 and 1248, Roger de Halghton, doubtless of this
place, was on a Jury which settled certain forest-rights of the
Abbot of Lilleshall. 220

Between 1248 and 1256, a second Hugh de Alcton or Halighton
occurs, first as attesting an Upton Deed of Walter de Dunstanvill
(III), and next as being assessed, about March 1250, for certain
small parcels of assarted land within the jurisdiction of the Forest.
In this case, he is described as Hugh de Halighton apud Ideshal,

218 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Lopin-
ton y Nos. x, xi, yiij. Among the witnesses
of the last deed (1305) is Richard de
Mokeleeton.

219 Supra, p. 281.

230 Pat, 18 Bic. II, p. 1, memb. 7, per
Intpeximu*.

ID8ALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

321

and before Michaelmas 1254, he had paid three years arrears of the
Baid assessment. 921

Now again a second Roger de Halcton occurs, viz. as a Juror in
a Donington Inquest of January 1256, and on a Forest Inquest,
held at Sheriff-Hales, in October 1259. He is moreover a witness
of several local deeds at this period.

This Soger was succeeded by his son, a third Hugh, before 1274;
for between 1270 and 1274,—

" Robert de Montford, Lord of Idesale, grants to Hugh de
Haltone and his heirs, thirteen acres of land in the Manor of
Idesale, lying between Richard le Hope's assart and Hotunalle,
near the assart of Roger Hod (of Drayton), in a place called
Ulet-hay. —

For this Hugh paid two merks down, and was to pay an annual
rent of 6s. in lieu of all services except suit of the Lord's Court." 888

This same "Hugh de Halaton" has been already noticed as having
purchased about this period certain premises from Emma, Widow
of Richard de Castro, perhaps his (Hugh's) Sister. 888

In September 1276, Hugh de Halenton sat as second Juror on
the Inquest as to Robert le Strange's disposal of Sutton.

On August 9, 1279, an agreement was come to between John de
Stiventon and Hugh son of Roger de Halhton. John undertook
that Hugh and his heirs should peaceably hold all assarts within
the Manor of Hydeshale, which they held at the time of agreement.
It was also settled in regard to certain woods, plains, roads, paths,
water-mills, and other liberties (in which the parties seem to have
had some common interest), that either party should, with consent
of the other, make improvements. Hugh also gives a similar
undertaking, as regarded John's assarts, to that which John had
given. Further, John quitted to Hugh one part of the wood and
waste which he had in the wood of Wyke from John de Grenhull,
as the parts were fenced adjacently to Trillewardin. Hugh is to
pay for this donation an annual rent of 2d. to John and his heirs,

m Mot Pip. 88 Hen. HI, Salop.

» Charter at Haughton. Tested by
Bobert Corbet (of Moreton), John de
Stiventon, Herbert de Wyke, John de
Grenhul, Walter leMarohal,&c. The Seal
of this deed is well preserved. It consists
of a coat of arms — Bendy of 10, and in
chief a label of 5 points. The Legend is —

• * OtLLUK ROBERTI DB MONTBFORTI.

» Contemporary with this Hugh was
also an Alan de Haughton, perhaps also
a relation. He (Alan) occurs about 1270
and in 1276.—

There was also a Bobert Chop of
Haughton, a landholder, Juror, and wit-
ness of local deeds, from 1289 to 1808. His
name was, I think, afterwards written
Job.

322

IDS ALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

besides 40s. now paid down. Two deeds alternately sealed with
the seals of each party were written and exchanged. 224

On September 2, 1281, King Edward I, wishing to do the Prior
of Wombridge a favour, and to relax in his case the stringency of
the recent Statute of Mortmain, gives him license " to take in fee-
farm the mill of Hugh de Halghton in Halghton, at such terms
as Hugh and the Prior may agree upon between themselves. And
Hugh may demise the same, saving the rights of any other party." 2 **

This permission was not immediately acted upon, perhaps in
consequence of a dispute which arose between the parties in
reference to another matter. —

In Trinity Term 1282, the Prior of Wombridge recovered a right
of common-pasture in twenty-one acres of Waste, in Halghton and
Enole, which right was appurtenant to the Prior's tenement in
Prior's Leigh. And Hugh and his son were in misericordid?^ —

This decision seems to have been inconclusive; for, on October
20th, 1282, a cause was heard before Ralph de Hengham and his
Fellow- Justices at Shrewsbury, in which the Prior of Wombridge
sued Hugh de Halgton and Roger and Henry his Sons, under writ
of novel disseizin, viz. that they had disseized the said Prior of
common pasture in Halghton and Knole. Hugh pleaded that
Robert de Montfort had enfeoffed him and his Sons therein ; but
nevertheless judgment was given for the Prior. 227

On March 18, 1284, a Convention between Philip, Prior of
Wombridge, and Hugh de Haleston, about Haleston Mill, was at
length concluded. Hugh gives the same to the Priory, together
with a water-course which he had recovered under writ of novel
disseizin against the Lords of Ydeshale, saving to Hugh the fishery
of said watercourse. The whole to be held in frank and perpetual
alnurign, together with the right of road which Hugh had obtained
by gift and charter of John de la Mare, Lord of Ydeshale. Hugh
is to make no other mill within the Manor of Ydeshale, nor to grind
elsewhere; he is to allow earth for repair of the watercourse and
other easements. The Prior in return grants to Hugh and his heirs

m Chyrograph at Haughton.— Wit-
nesses: Philip de Beckebur, John de Prees,
Alan de Kembriton, Herbert de Wyk,
Walter Marescall of Wyk, Thomaa att
Knollea, Eoger Hod of Draiton, Richard
Pater-noster of Drayton, Walter de Staun-
ton, Master Robert of Bruges, Clerk;
and others.

m Wombridge Ghartulary. Tit. Lega
Priori*, No. xliiij (being in fact a copy of
the King's Letters Patent on the occa-
sion).

m Abbreviate PlacUornm, p. 204.

v Plaeita apttd Salop, Michaelmas
Term, 10 Edw. I, memb. 6 dorso.

IDS ALL, OR SHIFPNAL. 328

free multure in his mills of Ydeshale and of Haleston, for all grain
necessary for Hugh's household or guests. Also the Prior and his
Successors shall, on presentation of Hugh or his heirs, always
receive a fit person as a Canon of their House, and on the death of
one such Nominee shall receive another, so that for ever they
should have one in their house, doing services for the souls of said
Hugh and his wife Alice, of his Ancestors and Successors, of Sir
Robert Burnel, of Master John de Kenley, of Ralph de Hengham,
and of the Chief Lords of Ydeshale, and all the faithful. And the
said Canon was to take his weekly turn of Monastic duties (sit eb-
domadarius), and be obedient in all things, as other professed Canons
of the House. To faithfully keep this peaceful adjustment (pacis
reformacionem) the Prior and Hugh took personal oath, and each
bound himself in case of non-observance to pay 100*. for relief of
the Holy-Land, and 40*. to the Aurum Regine, for each offence.
And if it should happen that the said Mill should fall down or be
destroyed, then the Prior was to be free from all his obligations.
Chirograph sealed with the seals of either party were ex-
changed. 888

The peace thus established was very transient. In 1286, a
King's Writ issues to the Sheriff of Shropshire, reciting how the
Prior had formerly recovered seizin of common pasture in Halegh-
ton and Knoll against Hugh and his Sons, and how the Prior had
now petitioned the King, asserting that Hugh had redisseized him.
The Sheriff is therefore to take the usual course against Hugh
under the statute of Re-disseizin* 29

The modes in which the interests of this family of Haughton
vanished from the Fee of Idsall is matter of much conjecture and
only partial evidence. —

We have seen that in the Convention of 1284, Alice, wife of Hugh
de Haughton, and Master John de Kenley are mentioned. My idea
is that Alice was Sister and eventual heir of the latter, whom we have

1,8 Wombridge Chartulary, TU. Lega
Priori*^ No. xzix. This curious Charter
has been inaccurately transcribed in the
Chartulaiy, or I should hare given it in
full. It is attested by the Lord Ralph
Abbot of Laieshull, Sir Thomas Corbet
(of Hadley), Sir Peter de Eyton, John
Dororose (Devereux), Master Laurence,
Adam Alimund (both written as if one
name), and William de Wyros (probably
Devyses).

** OriffinaUa, i, 62. The penalties for
MedisteivM were heavy, because it was a
contempt of the King's Court. The Sta-
tute of Merton (20 Hen. Ill) inflicted
imprisonment on the JUdiueieor / the
Statute of Marlborough (62 Hen. Ill)
added a fine to the Crown ; and the Statute
of Westminster, which had only passed a
year before the above (viz. 13 Edw. I),
had given double damages to the aggrieved
Party.

324

IDS ALL, OR 8HIPFNAL.

further seen in 1298 and 1297, making purchases in Knowle and
Idsall.

I also imagine that Alice, after Hugh de Haughton's death,
re-married to Peter de Carmarthen, and in a second widowhood
granted all she had at Haughton to Sir John de Cherleton. Cer-
tainly the eldest son of Hugh de Haughton, whose name we have
already seen was Roger, was afterwards called Roger de Kenley, and
made at least one concession of property in Idesall Manor to the
same Sir John de Cherleton.

These ideas are borrowed from the following Deeds : — On Feb. 16
(2 Edw. II) 1309, John de Cherleton, Knight, appoints John de
Cherleton Rector of Wrocwardin, William de Morton Rector of
Holm, and Reginald Charles, his Attorneys to receive seizin of all
lands and tenements which had belonged to Alice de Kenley,
formerly wife of Peter de Kermerdin, in the vitt of Hslghtonjuxta
Ideshale, whereof the aforesaid Alice, in liege and pure widowhood,
had expedited her Charter to said Sir John Cherleton. 280

Again on August 4, 1309, Roger de Kenleye son of Hugh de
Halghton quits to Sir John de Cherleton Knight, and his heirs, all
his claims, &c. in two assarts in the Manor of Ideshale, which are
called Flethay and the Barnd. 281

That Sir John de Cherleton made other and fuller purchases at
Haughton and in Idsall than are implied by these Deeds, is
evident from later Documents. By a Charter of September 15,
1309, he (Sir John) grants to Alan de Cherleton his Brother, his
Messuage in the vill of Halctun prope Ydeshale and all the land
which he bought from Alice de Keirmerdin. — To hold to said Alan
and the heirs of his body under the Chief Lords of the Fee,
rendering therefore to the said Chief Lords accustomed services

880 Charter at Haughton. This Power
of Attorney is dated at Dublin. The Seal
is well executed, containing a coat of arms,
apparently Or, on a chevron, three spread
Eagles. Sir John Cherleton of Powis,
the purchaser of these lands, Ac., became,
in 1313, a Baron by Summons.

01 Charter at Haughton. — Witnesses:
John de Everoys (Devereux), John de
Styvinton, John Herbert (of Wyke),
William Paternoster, William Hod, John
de Coleshulle, Ac. Dated at Salop, on
"Sunday, in the Feast of St. Bartho-
lomew the Apostle, in the third year of

the reign of King Edward." This Deed is
a proof of what I have often alluded to,
viz., that, in the early years of Edward II,
Charters were often dated in a way
which would not distinguish them from
Charters of the same regnal year of
Edward I. Thus, in this case, we find
that St. Bartholomew's Day (Aug. 24)
fell, in 3 Edw. I (1275), on Saturday, but
in 3 Edw. II (1309), on Sunday. And
the date, thus rectified, is further proved
by what is known of the Grantee, who ,
was not born, much less a Knight, in
1276.

IDSALL, OE 8HIFFNAL. 325

and rents. But if Alan should die without Heirs of his body
remainder is reserved to the Grantor and his Heirs. 332

About 1305, Hugh, son (and as I suppose younger son) of the
last Hugh de Haughton, gave a piece of land in " Knolle" to Idsall
Church in exchange for another piece in " Halhton."

I must close the present account with merely stating that after
the feoffment of Alan de Cherleton (who was of Apley), by his
Brother Sir John de Cherleton (of Powis), Haughton and its adjuncts
continued in the line of Cherleton of Apley for several generations.

A Chapel formerly belonged to the vill of Haughton. Some
remains, apparently existing in the last Century, have now totally
disappeared. 988

DRAYTON.

The principal Tenants here were of the family of Pater-Noster.
The first whom I find named is William Pater-Noster, who before
1194, attests two Deeds of Walter de Dunstanvill, and who probably
was identical with William de Drayton, assessed in 1209 as one
living within jurisdiction of the Forest of Mount-Gilbert. 284

At the Assizes of 1272, Alice de Drayton was found not to be
prosecuting her suit of novel disseizin in Suffenhale (Shiffnal) against
Robert de Montfort and John D'Evereus.

Between 1270 and 1280, Richard Pater-Noster occurs more than
once, as a witness of Deeds or as a Juror.

From 1292 to 1316, William Pater-Noster occurs in similar
positions, being accompanied by Thomas de Drayton in 1304, and
by Richard Pater-Noster in 1 3 1 6.

The last occurs repeatedly from 1320 to 1348 ; and John, son of
Richard Pater-Noster and Nephew of William de Steventon, occurs
in 1335.

Roger Hod of Drayton represented another family which held
here under the Lords of Idsall. He (Roger) occurs in 1261, and
from thence till 1279. From 1296 to 1335, William Hod seems
to hold the Tenancy.

M Charter at Haughton. — Witnesses :
John Deverrois, John de Stivinton, John
Erberd, William Pater-Noster, William
Hod, William de Dorises, and Thomas de
la Knolle. This Charter is dated "at
Salop, on the Morrow of the Exhaltation
of the Holy Cross, in the third year of
the reign of King Edward." — Again, the

King, thus indicated, must have been
Edward IT.

m Blakeway MSS. Dukes' App. p. xii.

1,4 Placita Foresta, 10 John, Salop,
memb. 4. Assessments are charged con-
secutively on the Prior of Wombrigg,
William de Drayton, Aky, the vill of
Tibberton, and the vill of Idchall.

II. 42

826

IDS ALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

On May 21, 1811, William Hod of Drayton quitted. to Worn-
bridge Priory all right of common in the herbage and pannage of
the Canons' Wood of Leshwyke. 285

On Oct. 2, 1334, William Hod of Drayton leases for his own life
his hall (aulam) and homestead (boverium) at Trilwardyne with a
curtilage and two crofts. 236 William Hod seems afterwards to have
sold his property at Trilwardine to Sir Alan de Cherleton, who
renews the lease in 1336. 337

STANTON.

About 1219, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) assigned to Shrewsbury
Abbey rents of 4*. and 2s. payable by Robert Fitz Adam and
Thomas le Hog on land in Stanton. 238

From about 1235 to 1265, 1 find a Ralph de Stanton occurring
under circumstances which induce me to consider him as Tenant here.

About 1269, Robert de Staunton appears in a similar position,
and in 1279, Walter de Staunton seems to have had a chief interest
in the vill.

UPTON.

There may be some doubt whether Upton were originally a
member of Tong or of Idsall. Though the Lords of Idsall
seem to have claimed some manorial authority here, they ultimately
established an unquestioned seigneury, by composition, and not as
a matter of right.

The first Under-Tenants whom I can find holding Upton seem
to have been Cadets of the family of Hugford.

Walter, Lord of Hugford, in 1096, had a Brother Henry, who
has already occurred under date of 1203, 239 and who very possibly
was of Upton. Again William de Hugford, whom we have men-
tioned as at issue with the Abbot of Build was in 1221, 240 was,
I think undoubtedly, La Zouche's Tenant here.

We have also seen how Henry de Hugford became about
1228-38, a Feoffee of Roger la Zouche in Tong-Norton and Shaw.
There is good reason to believe that at an earlier period this
Henry de Hugford was Tenant of the same Baron at Upton. —

336 Chartulary. Tit. LegaPrioris, No. xx.
— Witnesses : Roger Corbet, Peter Lord
of Eyton, John d'Everoys, John de Ste-
vinton, William Pater-NoBter, &c.

836 Charter at Haughton. — Dated at
Ideshale, and attested by Richard Patcr-
Noster, Thomas de Stevynton, Thomas

de la Knolle, Hugh Colle, Walter de Vises
(a corruption of De Devises).

** Charter at Haughton.

338 Salop Chartulary, No. 378.

238 Supra, page 85.

210 Supra, page 217.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

327

In virtue of the latter tenure, and before the year 1231, Henry
de Hugford granted the following subinfeudation here, viz. He
gave, &c. to Peter, Clerk, son of Master Richard of Hydeshall, for
his homage and service, and for 15$. paid down, half-a-virgate of
land in Upton, viz. that which Alfwin held, with all appurtenances
except the orchard and curtilage, in lieu whereof he, Henry, gave
two acres elsewhere. He also gave seventeen acres of his demesne,
viz. six acres in the field towards Stanton, seven acres in the field
towards Hettun, on this side Blakenhul, and five acres in Binstun
in the field of Brunestree : — to hold to the grantee and his heredi-
tary assignee, so that he commit not the premises to any House of
Religion, 241 rendering a rent of 3*. annually in lieu of all other
services, except foreign service. 242

This deed implies Henry de Hugford to have been Mesne-Lord
of other parts of Upton besides the premises conveyed. Probably
indeed he held the whole Township under La Zouche.

I find no mention of Henry de Hugford later than 1247 ; 243 nor
can I suppose that his heirs continued to possess any mesne tenure
in Upton. I believe their interest here to have been purchased by
the seigneural Lords of Tong or of Idsall. Certainly the 3*. rent,
reserved in the above Deed, was afterwards paid by the heirs of the
Feoffee to Walter de Dunstanvill (III) .

Following events however in chronological order, we pass to
July 1, 1247, for the next notice of Upton, after Hugford's Deed.

On that day, as has appeared by a Fine already cited, Alan la
Zouche conveyed to Build was Abbey "the whole tenement which he
had in Upton, with special warranty against the capital Lords, as
regarded all services, suits of the Manor-Court of Ideshale, &c. for
ever." 244

I have already quoted the Convention, whereby the Abbot of
Build was conceded them// of Upton to Walter de Dunstanvill (III),
in 1248, for an annual rent of 40*. and other considerations. 246

Very soon, as I think, after he had acquired Upton, " Sir Walter

*u An unusual caution in deeds of bo
early a date, — but suggested in this in-
stance, I imagine, by the coterminous
acquisitions of Buildwas Abbey.

848 Charter at Haughton. Attested by
Bichard de Ruton and Gerard de Iyilith,
Knights, Walter de Stiriclega (Stirch-
ley), Walter de Legs, Hugh de Haltun,
Walter Marescald, Boger Stuiorius, Ro-

bert de Trilleworthin, Alan de Laueleg

(Law ley), John de Hinitun, Robert de

Wikes, &o.

948 His attestation of a Broseley Deed

between 1244 and 1249 is the latest

notice of him which I can mention.

(Supra, p. 22.)
u* . 34* Supraj pp. 221 299.

328

IDSALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

de Dunstanevile Tercius granted to Reginald de Upton, Clerk, a
parcel of land lying between the Ditch without Haghul and another
Ditch towards the Park of Ydeshale. 846 The Feoffee may give or
sell the ground to any one, except a Religious body." 247

. The heir or successor to Peter Clericus (Hugford's Feoffee in
Upton) seems to have been Richard Irish of Dawley, to whom
succeeded his Son John.

The latter, styling himself " John Son of Richard Hyberniensis
of Dalileg," grants to Petronilla his Sister, all his land in the vill of
Upton, viz. that which Robert Bernehout held of Richard his
(John's) Father. The Deed provides against any transfer of the
Premises to a Religious House, and reserves " a rent of 3*. to Sir
Walter de Dunstanvill, according to that which is contained in the
Charter of Sir Henry de Hugford, which Charter the Grantor
(John) had given to Petronilla, when he put her in seizin of the
said land." ■«

Walter de Dunstanvill Tercius inspects, recites, and confirms
this last Deed as Seigneural Lord, reserving the rent of 3*. to
himself. 249 The confirmation seems to have immediately followed
the Charter, and to have been necessary, inasmuch as the former
implied an absolute change of Tenants, not a mere subinfeudation,
which last would have left John Fitz Richard Irish a mesne Tenant.

Perhaps the Grantee in the last Deed is the same person who
more than forty years afterwards, under the name of " Petronilla

949 Idsall Park seems to have Iain to
the South of the Town, and so to have
abutted on Upton to its East. A man-
sion at the Southern extremity of the
Town is still known as Park-House, and
a road leading due South is still called
Park-Lane.

"* Charter at Haughton. — Witnesses :
Sir Roger de Pivelesdon, John deBeckebur
(deceased in 1254), John de Grenhul,
William de Divises, John de Stivinton,
Herbert de Wike, Hugh de Aloton
(Haughton), &o. —

The Seal of this deed is broken, but the
label (a slip of parchment cut from some
older and then useless deed) contains a few
words of writing which I shall have here-
after to give as evidence in a question of
some difficulty.

548 Charter at Haughton.— Witnesses :

Radulph de Stanton, Roger de Haltun,
Oliver de la Knolle, Robert de Trillewor-
thin, Herbert de Wyke, Adam Pollart,
Robert Pollart, Robert de Lotwic, Philip
Ybernensis, &c. —

This deed is fastened with those of
Henry de Hugford, and with the following
Confirmation of Walter de Dunstanvill.
It probably passed between 1260 and
1270.

** Charter at Haughton. — The witnesses
precisely the same as the last. The Seal
of this deed is preserved. It has the Effigy
of a Knight in the armour of the period,
on horseback, charging sword in hand.
On his shield is a Coat-of-arms —

Pretty, with a fesse ; —
— though the latter would hardly be dis-
coverable without some pre-expectation
of such a bearing.

IDSALL, OR SHIPFNAL.

329

de Upton, gives to Richard her Son twelve acres and three roods
of land in the heath of Upton, lying between lands of Richard
Pater-Noster, Richard Fitz Roger, and John le Taylur. — To hold of
the Lords of the Fee." 260

Such were the principal Members of the extensive Manor of
Idsall in early times. There were other Tenants in the Manor of
equal standing with those enumerated, but whose interests were
rather associated with the Town itself than with any particular
member of the Manor. Some of these families shall be briefly
noticed, e. g. —

Stevinton. — John de Stevinton occurs from 1260 to 1304, as a
Juror, on no less than eight occasions, and a witness of numberless
deeds. He was in fact Bailiff of Idsall, and attests under that
title, at least on one occasion. —

About 1280, being apparently resident at Wyke, he quits to
Wombridge Priory all his claim in the wood of Leftwich (or
Lestwyk) , 261

And John de Steventon his son and heir granted to the Priory,
on April 13, 1309, a fuller acquittance of the said claim. His
Charter recites previous grants in connection with the said wood of
Lestwyke juxta Wombridge, viz. how in the first instance Sir
Walter de Dunstanvill (III) had given his ( John's) Father estovers
there, and how he had afterwards concurred with Thomas Tuschet
(Lord of Leegomery) in granting the wood to the Priory, how also
his (John's) Father had quitted all his right therein, in favour of
the Canons. 259

On the same day (April 13, 1309), Philip Prior of Wombridge
quitted to John de Stevinton all right of his House in the assarts,
wastes, and improved lands of John de Stevinton in Ideshale
Manor. 353

*° Charter at Haughton. — Witnesses :
John le Taylur, Richard Pater-Noster,
William de Levereshet, Elyas Clerk,
Bichard Howie, &o. — The deed probably
passed in the time of Edward II.

m Chartolary, Tit. Lega IViom,
No. zxij. — Witnesses : John the Grantor's
son and heir, Adam de Preston, Philip
de Bekeburi, Ranulf de Grenhul, Thomas
de Brocton, Ac.

80 Ibidem, No. xxj. — Witnesses: Sir
Soger Corbet, Sir William de Wrotteslye,

John de Bekeburi, Ac. — The Charter is
dated 2 Edw. I, according to an usual
error of transcribers. It passed doubtless
in 2 Edw. II.

858 Ibidem, No. liij. This deed is pro-
perly dated 2 Edw. II. It is tested by
the same two Knights as the last, also by
Sir Walter de Huggeforde, Sir Walter
de Beysin, and Sir Thomas Corbet (of
Moreton). —

The different mode in which the same
day (April 13) is expressed by these con-

330

IDSALL, OR SIJIFFNAL.

On February 24, 1316, I find this second John de Stevinton
attesting a Deed ds " Seneschal of the Manor of Ideshal/' an office
which, if identical with Bailiff, will have descended to him from
his Father.

He was living in 1320; after which William, Hugh, and Thomas
de Stevinton occur as witnesses of manorial deeds.

Devereux. — John Devereux, — his name spelt with all those
varieties to which Norman names were especially subject, — occurs
earlier than 1280, and later than 1340, — as a Juror or Witness, in
ldsall Manor or its neighbourhood. Perhaps more than one or two
persons may be thus indicated, but the place of his or their Tenancy
does not transpire.

Devises. — We have already mentioned the acquittal in 1272 of
William son of Robert de Divises, who had been bailed by the men
of ldsall. As William de Divises, he is constantly occurring in
local concerns till 1316. In 1322 and 1334, we have mention of
Walter de Divises, called, in one instance, son of William senior,
and appearing to be interested in Upton.

Pollard. — There was an Adam Pollard, Juror, in the matter of
Tong Advowson in 1220. The same name occurs repeatedly for
the next fifty years. In some cases the bearer is described " of
Legh." About 1269, Adam Pollard appears attesting deeds with
Robert his Son. Then we have Robert singly till 1316. Between
1270 and 1274, this Robert had a grant of assart-land from Sir
Robert de Montfort, which he afterwards surrendered to Dame
Petronilla, Sir Robert's Widow. 264

IDSALL CHURCH.

I have already stated how the Saxon and Collegiate Church of
Iteshale was granted by the first Norman Lord of the Manor to
Shrewsbury Abbey; how also the same Norman (Robert Fitz
Tetbald) did, during the reign of Henry I, make such further
assignation of this Advowson to the same Abbey, as that the
Collegiate character of the Church came to be extinct, and its

temporary Deeds is curious. The former
dates itself on " Sunday after the feast of
St. Loo the Pope" (meaning Leo the
Great); the latter is dated on "Sunday,
before the feast of Tiburtius and Valerian."
Each date in 2 Edward II (1309) will

be found to be reducible to Sunday April
13th.

*** Blakeway MSS. (from Newport
Deeds) . The surrender is tested by Hugh
de Bolyngbale, Philip de Beckburi, and
John de Stivinton.

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL,

331

revenues only an augmentation of the Treasury of a distant
Monastery.

The Saxon Parish of Iteshale was, like other Saxon Parishes,
extensive. It included Kemberton, Ryton, Sheriff-Hales, and
Dawley, as we may gather from indications or evidences still exist-
ing. It was probably far more comprehensive.

I have shown how the assignation of these great Saxon Churches
to Monasteries of Norman foundation or patronage, resulted in an
utter neglect of all spiritual cure as regarded rural districts. The
Churches or Chapels which were built to remedy this state of desti-
tution were usually the work of Laymen. Some such were founded
in the Parish of Idsall, and probably in the early half of the
twelfth Century. Our present concern is however with the Parent
Church. —

Robert Fitz Tetbald's gift thereof to Shrewsbury Abbey was
confirmed by Charters of Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, and
Henry III, though at the date of the last-named confirmation the
Advowson no longer appertained to the Monks.

The earliest confirmation to Shrewsbury Abbey by any Bishop of
Chester Diocese is that of Bishop Roger de Clinton (1129-1148).
It is very similar in expression to those contemporary Charters of
Robert de Betun Bishop of Hereford (1131-1148) which have been
quoted under Morville. The two Bishops seem to have adopted the
same principles as regards the subject condition of recent Churches,
and the pensions and other rights of the older establishments. 256

Bishop Roger of Chester, addressing his Archdeacons and Deans
(Rural Deans) and all the faithful who shall see his letter, informs
them that he " confirms the Churches or Tithes which have been
given to the Brethren of St. Peter's Monastery by the faithful.
The Clerks however who, by appointment of the said Brethren,
preside over their Churches, are to pay the annual pensions due to
the said Brethren out of such Churches, according to the mode
allowed by the Bishop to the Monks. The Monks are to continue
to have all tithes, as well in their own demesnes as in the demesnes

884 There is another reason for thinking
that these two Prelates acted in concert.
Archbishop Theobald, confirming to
Shrewsbury Abbey, addresses them toge-
ther (Chartulary, No. 55) ;-where however
the Transcriber has attributed the Charter
to Archbishop Thomas, and the Writer of

the Index to "St. Thomas the Martyr,"
meaning Becket. The latter however was
not contemporary with the Prelates whom
he is supposed to address. The original
Charter of Confirmation begun T. d. g.
Cant. Archiepiscopus, as we may learn
from Harl. MS. 3868, fo. 7,b.

332

IDSALL, OR SHIPFNAL.

of others, which they, previously and without dispute, enjoyed.
" And because," adds the Bishop, " necessity compelling, 256 we have
consecrated Cemeteries and dedicated Chapels in certain Parishes
of theirs, we enjoin that said Chapels be subject to the Mother
Churches, as daughters; and that on solemn days the people
assemble not at the Chapels but at the Church ; and that the Priest
of the Mother Church, if he wishes, may cause the bodies of the
dead to be carried to the Cemetery thereof."

" We have thought proper," continues the Bishop, " to confirm
with the seal of our authority, all Churches, and all Tithes, and the
Pensions of the underwritten Churches." —

The list which follows, includes the " Church of Ideshale, with
its Chapels, and a pension of 30*." The Bishop enjoins in con-
clusion that the aforesaid Brethren hold these Churches, Tithes,
and Pensions in peace. He threatens with anathema any one who
shall in future trouble them in the matter. 267

The confirmation of Bishop Walter Durdent (1149-1159), to
Shrewsbury Abbey, is prefaced nearly word for word as that of his
Predecessor. It would imply that he too had consecrated several
Chapels and Cemeteries as a matter of necessity. As regards the
rights of the Abbey under Robert Fitz Tetbald's grant, he is more
specific than Bishop Roger. He confirms the " Church of Itesall
with the tithe of the Manor, and the tithe of Cambrestone, and with
the Chapels pertaining to the aforesaid Church." His Charter
makes no enumeration of Pensions. 258

The confirmation of Bishop Richard Peche (1161-1182), to
Shrewsbury Abbey, includes the Pension of 30*., but makes no
mention of Tithes or Chapels attaching to " Idesale Church." 269

Between the years 1184 and 1190, Archbishop Baldwin seems
to have confirmed the Charter of Walter Durdent; and Archbishop
John Peckham visiting the Diocese of Lichfield in 1280, confirmed
the Pension of 30*. as due to Salop Abbey from the " Church of
Ifleshale." 260

Long previous to this last date, the Advowson of Idsall, had
returned to the Lords of the Manor. In what way I will now
declare. —

286 An allusion doubtless to the civil
ware of the period.
** Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 7, b.
368 Salop Chartulary, No. 61.
» Ibidem, No. 329.
960 Ibidem, Nos. 61, 62. The first

Charter has been improperly attributed
to Archbishop Boniface. It begins with
the letter "B." in initial only; — which
the Writer of the Index has, as usual,
interpreted according to his own ideas,
and interpreted wrongly.

1DSALL, OR SHIPFNAL. 333

Early in 1219, the Abbot of Shrewsbury and Walter de Dun-
stanvill (II) were at issue on the subject, but seem to have arrived at
some basis of agreement before the date of the following. —

On October 6, 1219, the Justices at Westminster appointed the
Morrow of St. Martin (Nov. 12) for the parties to receive their
Chirograph (formal fine) . It was enjoined to the Abbot's Attorney
that he should on that day bring with him the Charter of the
Abbot and Convent concerning their Quitclaim to the Advowson of
a Church, whereof there had been agreement, and Walter was
ordered meanwhile to assign to the said Abbot and Convent land
and rent which he had given for the said Quitclaim, viz. 30*.
Walter appointed Henry de Waltham his Attorney.

On the day named (says a postscript), the Abbot's Attorney pro-
duced the Charters and rendered them up ; so the Parties were
ordered to have their Chirograph. 261

This Chirograph or Final Concord is preserved. —

It purports to be levied at Westminster on the Morrow of St.
Martin in the 4th year of King Henry son of John (Nov. 12, 1219),
between Walter de Dunstanvill, Plaintiff, by Henry de Wautham
his Attorney, and Hugh, Abbot of Salopesbir, Deforciant, by.Thomas,
a Monk, his Attorney, — concerning the Advowson of the Church of
Ydesdal, whereof was suit of darrein presentment, &c. The Abbot
renounced all right therein to Walter and his Heirs, saving to the
Abbot the due and ancient Pension which the same Abbot was
wont to receive from the said Church. 268

The Salop Chartulary supplies its contingent to all but a com-
plete understanding of this transaction. —

By a Charter therein, Walter de Dunstanvill grants to the Abbey
27s. (not 30*.) annually, viz. 10*. to be received of William Fitz Ralph
of Blancmunster (Whitchurch) for the Fee which he held under
the said Walter in Chalvrehalle (Calverhall), 3*. receivable from
Henry de Savinton (Shavington), 2*. from Leonard de Leges,
1*. from Alan the Chaplain, 4*. and 2*. from Robert Fitz Adam and
Thomas le Hog for their respective Fees in Shavinton, Leges, Wyches,

981 Placita apud Wesim. Michaelmas
Term, 3 & 4 Heii. Ill, memb. 1.

282 Pedes Finium, 4 Hen. Ill, Salop.
Mr. Blakeway, weighing apparently the
genuineness of Earl Roger's Foundation-
Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, says ad-
versely, that "there are no traces that
either the Churches of Kemberton or

ii. 43

Idshall ever belonged to the said Abbey,
except that it enjoyed to the last a pen-
sion of 30*. issuing out of that of Idshall"
(History of Shrewsbury , volii, p. 14, note) .
I believe that none of the objections to
Earl Eoger's Charter are much better
founded.

334

IDS ALL, OB 8H1FFNAL.

and Stanton ; also 3*. per annum from the Abbot of Buildwas for
common-pasture which he enjoyed in the Manor of Hydeshale. 8 * 8

In 1291, the Church of Ydesale was valued at £20. per annum
over and above the Pension of 30*. which the Abbot of Salop
received therefrom. 2 * 4

In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in
the Parish of Idsall, recited the Taxation at which the Church
stood as one of 20 merks (£13. 6*. 8rf.), but reduced their
assessment to £12. 9*. The reasons which they gave for the
difference were, because the Abbot of Buldewas had in the Parish
a certain Grange, called Hatton, in which were three carucates of
land and many sheep; and this tenure, though included in the
Taxation, was not rateable to the Ninth; because also the glebe-
lands, rents and services of Tenants, tithes of hay and pasture,
oblations, and other small tithes of the Church, went to constitute
the greater sum (the Taxation), and did not belong to the Ninth
now granted to the King; lastly, because the corn had been
destroyed by sundry storms. 26 *

In 1534, the Abbot's pension of 30*., issuing out of Idsall
Church, is duly returned among his current receipts. The Church
itself, then a Vicarage, of which William Moreton was Incumbent,
was valued at £16. 5*. 10rf., out of which sum 16*. Sd. was pay-
able for Procurations, and 2*. 6rf, for Synodals.

The Rectory, fermed at £10. per annum, belonged to Battlefield
College, as did also the Tithes of Dawley (originally a Chapelry of
Idsall), which were fermed at £3. 6*. Sd. 2W

EABLY INCUMBENTS.

Walter de Dunstanvill, 267 the first Rector of Idsall, of whom
we have any notice, was also Rector of St. Michael's, Salop, a piece

» No. 878. TeBted by John Fitz
Alan, Vivian de Rossall, and Robert
de Gyroa. The date is of course 1219.

*« Pope Nicholaf Taxation, p. 248. .

** Inquisition** Nonarum, p. 184. The
"3 oarrueates of Hatton" probably in-
cluded Upton.

«■» Valor Ecclesiastic**, iii, 188, 187,
195. The Hectors of St. Andrews of
•' Yddeasall" also paid a pension of l&*.4d.
to the Bishop and Archdeacon, a Senate
of 4*. and a triennial Procuration, aye-
raging 8t . lOd. per annum, to the Bishop.

They, that is Battlefield College, had
lands at Aston, described in the same
Record as Aston juita « Shuffnall." Up
to this period (1534), I do not remember
that the name Shifmal was ever applied
to the Church.

W Mr. Blakeway (Eutory of Shrews-
bury, voL ii, p. 417) suggests that he was
a Son of Reginald Earl of Cornwall, cling-
ing, I suppose, to the old idea that the
latter was sometime Lord of Idsall. —

Even if we assign him such a parentage
it does not appear how he could be Cousin

IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

335

of preferment which he can only have obtained by favour of the
Crown. He occurs as Rector of St. Michael's before the death of
Henry II (1189), who will therefore have been his Patron. He
was Cousin (cognatus) of Walter de Dunstanvill (I) of Idsall, and
as such attests one of his Charters. Others he attests, simply
styling himself " Clerk" or " Parson of Idsall." "As Master Walter
de Dunstanvill " and " Master Walter" he appears to have attested
Charters of Hugh de Novant Bishop of Coventry, one of which
will have passed about 1188, the others on Nov. 24, 1190. 968 —

He was living in 1206, and, as Master Walter de Dunstanvill,
then stands first witness of a matter referred to high ecclesiastical
arbitration by Pope Innocent III. 86 * —

His successor 87 ° (immediate or otherwise) at St. Michael's, was
appointed by King John, on January 18, 1215 ; and the vacancy
which four years afterwards we know to have existed at Idsall, may
have originated at the same period, for during the interval no Law-
Courts had been sitting, such as might have decided any pending
cause of darrein presentment.

On gaining the right of Advowson in 1219, Walter Lord of
Idsall seems to have presented one Philip, for Philip Parson of
Ideshal had, on 29 July 1221, Letters Patent of Protection till
the King should be of age. 871

In the middle of the thirteenth Century —

Walter de Kemberton is a frequent witness of local Deeds.
In one of these he is expressly styled Rector of the Church of
Ideshall.

Master John Jots was Sector here in 1269; on August 29th
of which year he came to an agreement with the Prior of Worn-
bridge, abandoning a claim which he had been urging on the Prior
for Tithes of certain live-stock which had apparently been only

to Walter Baron of Idsall. He would
hare been his Brother-in-Law, i.e. Brother
of the apocryphal, if not fabulous, Ursula,
of whom we hare already spoken. The
family of Dunstanvill waa numerous. —
There waa a William de Dunstanvill, with
a younger Brother Walter, in Stephen's
reign, and both of these may have again
been Brothers of Robert and Alan. If so,
our Clerk, being son of either said Wil-
liam or Walter, will have been also first-
Cousin of Walter Baron of Idsall.

m Wombridge Chartulary, TU. Brocto*.
Nob. cj, cij.

909 Madox Formulate Angh No. xlvi

*° "Master Richard of Idahall," who
occurs before 1190 and after 1220, and
often in the interval, and who waa Father
of at least two sons, Peter and Nicholas,
does not seem to hare been Rector of the
Church. Hia apparent importance how-
ever requires some specific mention of his
name, and I think that he must have been
an Ecclesiastic.

** Patent, 5 Hen. III.

336

ID8ALL, OR SHIFFNAL.

used and fed within the Parish of Idsail accidentally, but belonged
to another district. The special privileges granted by the Pope to
Wombridge Priory seem to have exempted it from this liability. 272

Master Adam lb Gust, 378 " Rector of the Church of Idshall,"
attests a Charter of Fulk le Strange, already cited, and which
appears to have passed in June 1300.

In Trinity Term 1305, "Adam Gest, Parson of Hesitate," would
seem to be under prosecution of John de la Mare, Lord of Ideshale,
on two matters, one for cutting down trees of the said John, the
other for some trespass in regard to Deer. To the first charge
Adam replied that he was only taking house-bote, to the other that
at the time of the alleged offence he was Seneschal of the said
Lord of Idsail. 27 *

Master Adam Gest died Sept. 11, 1328, and on Sept. 16 follow-
ing, Master Thomas de Clopton was admitted to the Rectory
on presentation of Dame Margaret D'Oumframvill, Lady of
Badlesmere. 275

In 1329, and, as I suppose, ignoring the last [presentation, the
King presented —

Robert Swynnerton to this Living, the Patronage whereof
belonged to the Crown by reason of the Barony of Bartholomew de
Badlesmere being in manu Regis* m —

This however seems to have been revoked, for on December 17,
1330, I find the Bishop readmitting Sir Thomas de Clopton,
Priest, but on the presentation of King Edward III. On March
5, 1331, Thomas de Clopton resigned, having exchanged preferments
with Simon de Clopton, Incumbent of Walton. Accordingly on
the same day the Bishop admits —

Sir Simon de Clopton, Subdeacon, at the King's presentation. 277

** Chartulary, Tit, LegaPrioris, No. li.

273 Mr.Blakeway quotes Prynne (iii, 593)
for a Protection granted in 22 Edw. I
(1293-4) to Master Adam de West, Parson
of Ideshale.

374 Abbreviate Placitorum, p. 254.

27* Lichfield Register, B, fo. 206b. The
Patroness of Idsail Church on this occa-
sion was Margaret, Widow of Bartholomew
Lord Badlesmere, who, having been taken
prisoner at the battle of Borough-Bridge,
in March 1322, was executed for High
Treason. His Widow is said to have been
by birth a De Clare, to have been impri-

soned in The Tower for some time after
her husband's death, and on her release
to have gone into a Nunnery ; but she is
also said to have had Idsail assigned to
her in part of her dower in 1331. —

One or other of these statements must
require modification from the fact of her
being styled Dame Margaret D'Umfram-
ville in 1328.

*» Patent, 3 Edw. Ill, p. 1, memb. 34.

ct Lichfield Register, B, 208 b. The
presentation of Simon de Clopton is also
on the Patent Roll* of 4 Edw. Ill (part 2,
memos. 12 & 24).

IDSALL, OR 8HIFFNAL. 337

On March 6, 1331, the said Simon had license to study for four
years. He died August 20, 1349 ; and on Sept. 10 following, the
Bishop admitted —

Richakd Garlaund, Clerk, at presentation of Sir William de
Bohun, Earl of Northampton and Constable of England. 878

FABRIC OF THB CHURCH.

Shiffhal Church is a large building of several dates. It has a
nave with aisles and a south porch, north and south transept, and
central tower, and a chancel with a south aisle or chapel, called the
Moreton Chancel.

Part of the south transept, part of the north wall of the chancel,
and the chancel arch, which is eastward of that under the east wall
of the tower, are of a transitional style between the Norman and
Early-English, and probably belong to the end of the twelfth
century. The chancel arch is round, and the mouldings are some-
what remarkable; in one of them, the Early-English dog-tooth
ornament appears. ,

The south porch, which has a Parvise or upper story, is of
Early-English character ; perhaps with a slight tendency to theDeco-
rated, but I doubt not, belonging to the thirteenth century, though
probably to the latter half of it. The outer door has a trefoiled
arch. The bay of the aisle corresponding with the porch has a
stone-ribbed vault, and is lower than the rest of the aisle, its pier
arch too is not so high as the others.

The nave, chancel (with the exception already noticed), and
central tower are of the Decorated style ; I should say somewhat
early in the fourteenth century. The north aisle has had some
rer/late windows inserted. The central tower is very plain, and
has a large stair-turret at the north-west angle. The tower
stands on four piers of which the two eastern ones do not range
with the eastern wall of the transepts, so that it is not so large as
a tower fitted to the actual intersection : notwithstanding this, it is
still massive rather than the contrary. The east window of the
chancel, and those on the north and south, near the east end,
have a peculiar character, and seem Early in the style. The west
window I think must have been modernized. The chancel has
some good Sedilia.

* 8 Register, B, 224 a & b. William I of his wife Elisabeth, Sister and Coheir of
do Bohun was Lord of Idsall in right | Giles last Baron Badlesmere.

333 1DSALL, OR 8HIFFNAL.

The Moreton chancel, now screened off as a vestry, is of a later
Decorated, and exhibits flowing tracery in its windows.

The north transept is entirely of Perpendicular work, of the
fifteenth century; and the south transept has windows and parapet
of the same style.

The portion of the south aisle between the porch and the
transept is of very late work ; I should say of the sixteenth cen-
tury; it is much wider than the western part of the aisle, or than
the north aisle.

The Church is on the whole in good preservation, and both the
Transitional, the Early-English, and the older Decorated portions
may be studied with confidence, as retaining their principal features
unaltered.

J. L. Petit.

CHANCEL, S1UPPNAL

F1NIAL AND DEVICE OVER THE WESTERN PACE OP
LARCH, SHIFPNAL.

339

INDEX OF PLACES.

%* The name of each Place, which has formed the subject of a distinct notice,
is printed in Capital Letters.

Beferenoe to the page, or pages, of such distinct notice is made by the larger
figures.

The abbreviation v, stands for " vide," ft. for "note."

Abergavenny, 75.

Aokleton, 63, 64, 65, 67, 74, 76.

Acre (Palestine), 72.

Acton Burnell, 185.

Adderley, 281, 290, 298, 801 ft, 802-8.

Alberbury, 8, 12.

AxBBiGHTOir, 88, 89, 149-166, 174,

181, 185, 245, 246, 250 », 268, 264.
Church, 164, 158-166.

— , Beamish Hall, 246 ft.

Aldeford (Surrey), 272, 285-287, 291.
Alnodestbstj Huhdbbd, 1, 36, 89, 61,

62, 80, 168, 174, 257, 260, 261.
Alveley, 74, 113, 115, 116, 258-9.
Apley (Castle), 825.
Arley (Staffordshire), 32.
Ablscot (Broseley), 10, 15, 18, 19, 22,

28 », 86-87.
Arques (Normandy), 276, 281 ft, 282 «,

285.
Arundel (Sussex), 267.
, Honour of 201-2, 267-8, 273-4,

294.
Ashby de la Zouche (Leicestershire), 180,

204, 206, 211, 218.

, Church of, 204, 206, 211.

, Overton, 211.

, Suarteclyve, 211.

Ashfield (Priors Ditton), 7, 65, 72.
Ashley upon Tern (Staffordshire), 8-11,

14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27.
Astall, 70 ».

Astley- Abbots, 45, 68, 74, 100, 157, 241.
Atchley (Byton), 87.
Avoohelie, v. Hawkesley.
Axbridge (Bath and Wells Dioc), 252.
Ayleston (Leicestershire), v. Elstow.
Aynulf s-Lee, 91, 279,318, v. Priors-Lee.

Badges, 12, 61-80, 98, 125 «, 180,

143, 147, 148.

Church, 65, 75, 76-80.

Bamburo (Norfolk), 216.
Bardeley, 63, 70, 78, 74, 76.
Barnevill (Normandy), 281 ft.
Barnwell Priory (Cambridgeshire), 105 ».
Bascheroh Hundred, 174, 258-9, 261,

804 n.
Basingwerk Abbey (N. Wales), 271.

Castle (N. Wales), 207.

Battlefield College, 334.

Beckbury, 50 ft, 68, 70, 71, 73, 76, 78,

91, 93, 134, 146 ft, 190.
— — — Church, 77.
Bedestone (Wilts), 268, 290.
Bedford, 292.
Beroham, Beroham, or Bergham (Sussex),

274 », 277, 286, 290, 294, 801 «.
Ohuroh ot, 272, 278 ft, 278, t>.

Bernham.
Bergholt (Suffolk), 801.
Bernham Church (Sussex), 278, 299.

Qy. Bergham ?
Berrington, 190.

Betton (Abbots), 200-1, 206 ft, 207, 216.
Bioton, 87, 88 «.
Biham (Lincolnshire), 152, 289.
Billingsley, 7, 19, 20, 21, 87.
Bishopeswey (Shiflnal), 299.
Bishops-Castle, 86.
Bishopston, v. Bishton.
Bibhtok, 154, 166-167, 168.
Blackfordby (Leicestershire), Chapel ot,

204, 206, 211.
Blackmere (Whitchurch), 121.
Blaketorinton (Devon), 216.
Blankmunster, v, Whitchurch.

340

INDEX OF PLACES.

Blymhill (Staffordshire), 25, 26, 187, 207,

218, 263.
Bobbington, 258-9.
Bold, 51, 190.
Boningale, 88, 149, 157.

Chapel, 148.

Borough-Bridge, 336 ».

BoBCobel, 187 ».

Bosoomb (Wilts), 236.

Bosle, v. Broseley.

Bosworth (Leicestershire), 237.

Bradford Hundred, 184, 135, 307.

Mill, 4.

Bradiby (Broseley), 7, 8, 10, 18, 19,

86-87.

Bradwell (Essex), 801.

Bray (near Windsor), 36.

Brecknock, Honour of, 177, 213, 220 »,

236.
Bredon (Leicestershire), 211.
Brenchesle (Herts), 235.
Brewood, 181, 186, 187 », 201, 203, 218,

221.

, Stryfwode, 237.

Bbewood Foebst, 149 », 151, 185-

190.

, Bishops Wood, 185.

, Black Nunnery of, 187, 188 n,

190 ».
. , Whitb Nusweby ot, 179,

180, 187-190.
Brictefeld (Wilts), 290.
Briotelegh (Devonshire), 213.
Bridgnorth, 23, 24, 27, 40,63, 70, 72, 75,

82, 117 », 132, 155, 167, 186, 188,190,

241, 271.
Castle, 64, 89, 150, 151.

-, Liberty of, 1.

-, St. John's Hospital, 147.

Brimmesfield (Gloucesterahire), 222-3,

296.
Brimstree Hundred, 1, 61, 69, 73, 88,

168, 258-9, 260, et passim.
Brinton (Staffordshire), 25, 207.
Bristol, 235, 288.

Abbey, 271.

, St. Mary's Church, 251.

Brittany, Little, 3, 152, 210, 211, 213,

214 n, 216, 219, 293.
Broctone (Wilts), 268, 277, 286, 288,

290.
Brockton (Staffordshire), 264 ».

Brockton (Sutton Maddock), 8, 9, 14,
15, 39, 41, 48, 44, 62, 68, 81, 91, 92 n,
98-108, 109, 114, 116-119, 121-131,
137, 141, 143 n, 145, 146, 306, 811,
312, 313.

, Avenals, 94, 122.

, Bedlesdun, 129.

, Bromcroft, 94.

, Bwbemere, 120.

, Hemme, 118, 120, 125, 127,

127 ».

, Kembrichaiamere, 180.

— — , Kerswalle-Moor, 118.

, Medebroo (Mad-brook), 124.

, Moor, 122.

, Parroc, 124.

, Wodecrofte, 126.

, Wunedon, 94.

Brockwode, 230.

Brome (Ellesmere), 82.

Bromley, Gerrards (Staffordshire), 15.

Beosbley, 1-39, 40, 61, 124.

, Chtjech or Chapbl of, 22,

23, 28, 30, 33-36, 42, 77.

, Baredis (in), 16.

-, Dene, 31, v. Dean.
-, Denesti, 16.
-, Dune, The, 31.
-, Hargrere, 16.
-, Hurste, 16.
-, Longefurlong, 16.
-, Palmers-Croft, 31.
-, Budinge, The, 31.
-, Switfield, 16.

Browns-over (Warwickshire), 62. ,

Brug, v. Bridgnorth.

Brug, Little, 82, 152, 153.

Buildwas Abbey, 14, 86-87, 91, 169-173,

175, 177, 183 », 202-204, 217, 221,

238, 241, 247, 263-4, 300, 806, 309,

310, 318, 319, 827.
Burcham (Sussex), v. Bercham.
Burohester Priory, 284.
Burford, 62.
Burnham (Essex), 198.
Burton (Wenlock), 19 *, 44, 57 », 69,

75 ».
Burwarton, 258-9.

Calais, 226, 255.
Calverhall, 333.

INDEX OF PLACE8.

341

Calrreton (Notts), 188.

Canterbury, Church of, 196, 198.

Carlisle, 245.

Castle-Cumbe (Wilts), 268, 275-6, 277,

282, 287-8, 290, 295-6, 301 », 802-3.
Castle Holgate, Barony of, 178 », v, Hol-

gate.
Castle, Thb (Idsall), v. IdsalL
Cantlop, 154.
Catteley juxta Upleden (Herefordshire),

233, 236.
Cjluqhlxy, 1 it, 48-45, 69 ft.
Chatkill (Staffordshire), 15.
Chatwall, 190.
Chelmarsh, 268-9.
Chester, 109, 293, 295.

, Diocese of, 76.

, Honour of, 245.

Chesterton (Warwickshire), 152 «.
Cheswardine, 8, 57, 113, 118.
Chetwynd, 46, 48.

, Fee of, 48, 49.

Chich (Essex), 199, v. Saint Osyth's.

Chichester, 194, 195.

Chillington (Staffordshire), 185.

Chinon, 285.

Chirk Castle (Denbighshire), 110.

Christ-Church (Hants), 270.

Church Lawford (Warwickshire), 184.

Clare, Honour of, 272.

Clarendon, 228, 282.

Claverley, 157, 159, 167, 258-9.

Clent Hundred, Worcestershire, 258-9.

Clerkenwell Nunnery (London), 200.

deobury-North, 78, 74, 75, 76, 258-9,

261.
Clopton (Lincolnshire Dioc.), 161.
Cocking (Sussex), 267.
Cold Hatton, 172 ».
Cold Weston, 75, 816 ».
Colinton (Devonshire), 284, 292, 296.
Colerne (Wilts), 268, 275-6, 282, 288 ft,

290, 295, 301 ft, 302-3.
Come or Cumb (Wilts), v. Castle-Cunibe.
Compostella, St. James' of, 216.
Contone (Wilts), 268.
Corf (Dorsetshire), 215.
Corfham, 122.
Cormeilles, Honour of, 225.
Corve (Monk Hopton), 6, 40.
Costokd, 88, 150, 160 ft, 168, 169, 173 »,

174, 247, 258-9, 262-264.
II.

Costesei (Norfolk), 215, 216.
Cound, 250 ft.

Coutanoe (Normandy), 269 ».
Covelham (Win ton Dioc), 35.
Coven (Staffordshire), 27, 30.
Cublesdon (Staffordshire), 240.
Cumbrewelle (Wilts), 268, 290.
Cumpton (Wilts), 290.
Cupton (Warwickshire), 143.
Outifbrd (Wilts), 272, 277.

Dawley, 68, 89, 116, 314 ft, 828, 331, 834.

Dean, The (Broseley), 38.

Deuxhill, 1.

Devizes (Wilts), 271, 288.

Diddlebury, 136.

Dieppe (Normandy), 275.

Dol (Brittany), 211.

Doninotoh, 41, 88, 157, 167, 173-186,
187, 192, 201, 213 ft, 214 ft, 218, 221,
238, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 321.

Chtjboh, 181-184, 192,

199, 247.

-, Chelfesford, near, 175 ft, 238.
-, Wood of, 174, 178, 179, 180-1.

Donington-Wood, 205.

Dorchester, Church of, 204.

Dorrington (Muckleston), 16 ft.

Dovaston, 113.

Drayton, Little (in Hales), 46, 47.

Dbatton (Shiffnal), 46 ft, 282 n, 812,

325-326.
— — , Market, 47 ft.
Droitwich (Worcestershire), 174 «.
Dublin, 15, 214, 276 ft, 812 », 824 «.
Dudley Priory, 52.
Dudmaston, 41.
Dunethe (Ireland), 163.

East-bourne (Sussex), 269 ft.

Eooleshall Castle, 140, 186.

Edgmond, 83, 140 ft.

EUardine, 8, 109, 114, 116, 118, 120, 128.

Ely, Church of, 254ii.

— , See of, 197.

Ellesmere, 158.

Elstow (Leicestershire), 41, 101, 221, 225,

233, 236, 239, 240.
Elvein (North Wales), 152, 293.
Ernewode, 229.

342

INDKX OF PLACES.

Esseleg, t>. Ashley.
Esthampton, 154.
Eston (Norfolk), 216.
Eton, Little (Piohford), 46.
Etone, 167-168, v. Hatton.
Eudon George, 258-9.
Evesham, 20, 57, 243.
Etelith, 169, 170, 242, 281 n, 804-
808, 309.

Chapel, 308.

Ewdnzss, 146-147.

Ewyas Harold (Herefordshire), 156, 159.

Exeter, Church of; 199.

Eye (Suffolk), Honour of, 216.

F.
Fairford (Gloucestershire), 215.
Faleiae (Normandy), 5.
Falley (Lino. Dioc.), 61.
Farleigh Priory (Wilts), 272, 277.
Farlow, 98.

Farnebergh (Bath and Wells Dioc), 251.
Feokenham (Worcestershire), 27.
Ford (Aston Botterell), 316 ».
Frome (Herefordshire), 20.
Fulburn (Cambridgeshire), 218, 219.

Gannok (Diganwy, North-Wales), 152.
Gasoony, 99 ft.

Gilbert, Mount (The Wrekin), 132.
, .Forest of, 118, 314 «,

815, 318, 825.
Gillook (Herefordshire), 228, 230, 233, 286.
Glazeley Church, 77.
Gloucester, 292.
Gloucester, Honour of, 216.
Goring (Sussex), 267.
Grenhull, v. Grindle.
Great Iselham (Oambr.) t>. Iselham.
Gretham (Sussex), Chapel of; 272, 278 ft,

299.
Gretton, 53, 65, 242.
Geikdle, 85, 90-92, 137, 172, 298.

Haddon (Derbyshire), 240.
Hadley, 226, 282 ft.
Hales-Owen, 135, 258*9, 260.
Hamme (Herefordshire), 20.
Hammee (Sussex), 289, 290, 291.
Hardham (Sussex), 267.

Harlaston (Staffordshire), 226, 240.

Harley, 58.

Harnage, 40.

Habbington, 86 ft, 91, 122, 181-187,

141.
Hastings, 268.

Hatfield-Pererel (Essex), 104.
Hatton (Shiffhal), 87, 88 it, 168, 169-

178, 217 ft, 241, 247, 264, 299, 304,

809, 327, 834.

, Chapel of, 173.

, Tuy-brook, 169, 170, 172.

Hatton Crasset, 173, 264.
Hatton Traynel, 173, 264.
Haughmond Abbey, 8, 68, 82, 83, 150,

271, 273, 293.

Forest, 118.

Haughton (Shiffiial), 312, 317, 820-

825.

Chapel, 325.

Mill, 322-3.

Hawkesley, 168.

Hedendon (Oxfordshire), 284, 296.

Hem (Shiffnal), 281 ft, 306, 809-810,

312.
Herberbury (Warwickshire), 152 ft, 153 ft.
Herdecote (Wilts), 801* «*, v. Hurdecote.
Herdwyke (Ellesmere), 145.
Hereford, 295.

, Diocese of, 76.

,St. Guthlac's Priory, 147-8.

Herthull, 91.

Heytesbury (Wilts), 272, 274-5, 276-7,

286, 288, 290, 292, 295, 301 «, 303.
Heywode (Staffordshire), 140, 189, 190.
Higford, 134, 146 », 147, 148, 258-9, 326.
High Ercall, 190, 282 ft.
High Hatton, 282 ft.
Higley, 17, 190.
HnroixoTOV, 169, 172, 281ft, 306, 308-

809.
Hodnet, 168.
Holgate, Castle and Barony of, 4, 60,

178 «, 196, 198,204.
Hopton, 168.

Humphbbstov, 154, 181, 190.
Huningeham (Norfolk), 216.
Hurdecote (Wilts), 295, 301 ft, bit.

I.
Idball or Shiffnal, 46 ft, 90, 91 «, 174,
217, 221, 242, 250 n, 258, 265-888.

INDEX OF PLACES.

343

Idball OmniCH, 265-6, 299, 830-838.

Honor, 172, 206.

Pariah, 88, 103, 173, 331.

, Aston, 834 ».

, Barnd, The, 324.

, Castle, The, 299, 318-0.

, Flethay, 824.

, Hotunalle, 821.

, Mills of, 280.

, Patesford Mill, 280.

f Park, 314, 328.

, Ulet-hay, 821.

Ingardine, 190.

Ireland, 153, 196, 197.

Iselham (Cambridgeshire), 294, 300, 801 n,

Iteahale or Idahale v. Idsall.

Jerusalem, 71, 72, 138.

Kemberton Church, 258-9, 266, 812, 314*,

331, 332, 333 it.
Kenilworth Castle, 243.
Kenley, 53, 54, 55, 242.
Keri, 152, 291, 292.
Ketley, 314 it.

Kidderminster (Woroestersh.), 64*, 215.
Kilsall, 178, 181.
Kinaston, 113.
Kinver (Staffordshire), 186.
Knockyn, 113.
Kkowle (Shiffnal), 281, 299, 312, 317-

818, 320, 322-4.
— — — , Hopemon-field, 319.
, Horeston, 319.

, Long-Rudigg, 281, 317.

, Smelebroe, 281, 317.

-, Sumerlone, 281, 817.
-, Wood, 281, 317.

Lacy, Honour of, 206.

Lambeth, 140, 199.

Langley, 101, 102.

Lawley, 49, 814 *.

Lee Brookhurst, 154.

Lee, Leia, Leies, Lega Aynulfi, Legs

Prioris, v. Priors Lee.
Lee-gomery, 298, 329.
Lee Parra, v. Leonards Lee.

Lbonabds Lee, 814-817, 838.

, Blackpull, 317.

, Blakesicheshurst, 317..

-, Lestewike, 317, 326, 329.

Lewes (Sussex), 295.

Priory, 268, 270, 272-3, 278, 299.

Leye (Worcestershire), 228, 230, 232.
Lichfield, 138, 186, 220, 237 », 244.

f Church o^ 90.

■, Diocese o( 76, 832.

, See of, 166.

Lidley, 14.
Lilleshall, 174, 314 1».

Abbey, 68, 98, 102, 167, 176,

201, 204, 205, 211, 212, 222, 241.
Limberg Magna (Lincolnshire), 245-6.
LiNiiKY, 1», 89-42, 69n, 97, 98, 99, 101.

, Chapel op, 42.

Linley (Herts), 58 ft.
Lint6t (Normandy), 282 n.
Lizard, The, 203, 205, 211.

Grange, 205, 221, 222.

London, passim,

, The Tower, 336 it.

Longford, 46, 47.

Longnor (near Cundover), 122.

Longnor (Staffordshire), 21, 37 n.

Long Stanton, 72.

Lopinton Church, 138.

Luoteshull (Wilts), 290.

Lude Muchegros (Herefordshire), 215.

Ludlow, 295.

Lye, The, 68.

Lynne (Ireland), 153.

Madeley, 78, 93, 124 n.

Church, 35; 77.

Malmesbury (Wilts), 269, 270.
Manchester, 159.
Mans, Le (Maine), 277.
Mapledurham (Hants), 215.
Marches of Wales, o. Wales.
Marlborough (Wilts), 288, 303.
Matilda, Castle (in EWein), 129 n.
Mayden Bradley (Wilts), 218.
Meadowley, 175, 176 it, 177-8, 193 it, 204,

207.
Melton in Wappenham (Lincolnshire

Diocese), 61.
Mercia, 103.
Mere (Staffordshire), 244, 215 n.

344

INDEX OF PLACE8.

Micham (Surrey), 301 n.
Middlewich (Cheshire), 174 ft.
Mochnant above Bayader (N. Wales), 110.
Mochnant is Bayader (North Wales),

108, 110.
Montgomery, Castle and Honour of, 17,

95, 96, 100, 101, 121, 134, 143, 144,

162, 292.
Moreton, Honour of, 293 n.
Moreton (Corbet), 49, 281 n, 304-5,

307-9.
Morf, Forest of, 37, 38, 310.
Mortlake (Surrey), 195.
Morville, 33 n, 77, 196.

Church, 266 ft.

Mukleston, 160.

Munslow Hundred, 1, 19, 41, 43, 61, 168.

jr.

Nantwich (Cheshire), 174 ft, v. Wich-

Malbank.
Neachley, 181.
Neenton, 258-9.
Ness (Strange), 67, 113, 118.
Newport (Noyum Burgum), 41, 72, 140.
, Deanery of, 89, 141, 148, 158,

173, 250.
Newtimber (Sussex), 273, 278 2C3.
Nordley (Astley- Abbots), 41.
Norley-Begis, 258-9.
Normandy, 195, 196, 213, 261 .
North-Molton (Devon), 213, 216.
North-Tudeworth (Wilts), 232, 233,235-6.
Northwich (Cheshire), 174 ».
Norton (Condover), 102.
Norton (Stockton), 146.
Norton (Gloucestershire), 230.
Norton and Mere (Staffordshire), 244,

245 ».
Nottingham, 7, 8, 104, 196.
Nymed (Devonshire), 216.

O.
Oldbury, 135.

Overton (near Aston Botterell), 316 ft.
Oxford, 271, 273.

Pachesag (Wilts), 290.
Pageham (Sussex), 195.
Pakynton (Leicestershire), 211.
Palestine, 58, 59, 60, 296, 323.

Pattingham (Staffordshire), 149.

Pembridge (Herefordshire), 225, 226-231.

Pepingbury (Herts), 235.

Pershore Monastery (Worcestersh.), 260.

Peterfield (Hants), 215.

Petworth (Sussex), 267.

Petworth (Sussex), Honour of, 213, 267.

Pichford, 46, 55, 83, 151, 164, 165, 157.

Ploughley Hundred (Oxfordshire), 33.

Podmore (Staffordshire), 15.

Poitou, 152 bis. 214, 288, 293, 297.

Poltone (Wilts), 261, 269, 290.

Portsmouth, 219, 237.

Posenal, 40.

Powis, Kingdom of, 106, 109, 110, 111.

Prees, 90.

Prestatton (N. Wales), 207.

Preston (Brockhirat), 49, 307.

(on the Wild-Moors), 316.

Priors-Ditton Church, 9, 40, 67.
Pbiobs Leb, 273, 279, 280, 299, 312,

313-314, 319, 822, 330.
Pulborough (Suseex), 267.
Pycheoote (Bucks), 248.
PymhiU Hundred, 807.
Pyrehill Hundred (Staffordshire), 9.

Q.
Quat, 258-9.
Quatford Church, 149.

Badmore (Staffordshire), 271.

Radnor, Honour of, 225, 227.

Beading, 138*, 153, 276 n.

Becordine Hundred, 174.

Bhedon (Brittany), 211.

Bhuddlan, 154, 207, 245.

Richards Castle (Herefordshire), 33 »,

62, 69.
Bidware Mauveysin (Staffordshire), 9.
Roche Andeley (Normandy), 263.
Bodington, 47 ».
Bohan (Brittany), 210.
Bomesley, 75 ft, 258-9.
Rouen, 64 », 213, 281 n.

, Church of, 276 ft.

Boumaisnil (Normandy), 275.

Bowton (High Ercall), 8, 109, 114, 116,

118, 120, 128, 190.
Buckley, 169, 175, 203, 217 », 218, 220,

221, 238, 246-247, 299.

INDEX OF PLACES.

345

Badge, 68, 190, 258-9.
Bushbury, 51, 55, 57.
Ruthall (Priors Ditton), 123, 124.
Byton, 62, 80-92, 137, 146 n, 160, 153,
157, 159, 247, 331.

Church, 88-00, 154.

Byton (Warwickshire), 80.

Saint Albans, Church of, 199.

Saint Benet's of Halm (Norfolk), 271.

Saint Osytb's Priory (Essex), 182, 199,

200.
Saint Pabus' (France), 219.
Saint Paul's (London), 196, 199, 200.
Saint Bemigius' at Bheims, 194.
Saisdone Hundred, v. Seisdon Hundred.
Salisbury Castle, 232, 295.
Samihest (Southants), 215.
Sandford, 128 ft.
Savigni, Church of, 203, 204.
Seisdon Hundred (Staffordshire), 258-9,

262.
Severn, River, 14, 115.
Shakerley, 176, 178, 180, 181.
Shalford (Surrey), 272, 277-8, 284-5, 287,

291, 299, 300 ft.
Shavington, 333.
Sheriff-Hales, 321, 331.
Shiflhal, 46», 259, 266, 314, 819, 825,

v. Idsall.
Shipley, 258-9.
Shirlot Forest, 6 ft, 87, 38, 39, 52, 58, 63,

70, 73, 75,
Shrawardine Castle, 9, 14, 17 ft, 84, 85, 93,

94, 95*, 98, 100, 143, 144, 168, 172.
Shrewsbury, 9, 32, 190, 193, 194, 198 ft,

202.
Abbey, 40, 41, 63, 64, 68, 74>

106, 181-2, 200, 201, 212, 216, 217,

247-252, 265», 266, 271, 293, 310, 812,

815, 826, 830-334.

Castle, 84.

, Saint Chad's Church, 46.

, Saint Mary's Church, 61.

■ , Saint Michael's Church, 335.

Shuston (Staffordshire), 37.
Sidbury, 258-9.
Silvington, 19.
Snedshill (Shiflhal), 298.
Souldern (Oxfordshire), 32, 33.
Stafford, 139, 264 it, 811.

Stafford, St. Thomas' Church, 139.
Stamford (Watlingstreet), 299.
Standon (Staffordshire), 15.
StanleiHundred (Warwicksh.), 258 -9, 262.
Stanton Harecourt (Oxfordshire), 237.
Stanwey, 178, 179, 242, 244.

-, Nether, 242, 243, 244.

, Over, 243.

Stanton (Shiflhal), 299, 319, 826, 327,

334.

, Sparkmore, 299.

Sterte (Wilts), 268, 290, 295, 801 ft.
Stirohley, 250 ft, 814 it, 815.

Church, 148.

Wood, 300, 315.

Stockton, 93, 121 ft, 142-148.

Chuboh, 147-148.

, Little, alias Bodi Stockton,

145-6.
, Much, alias Church Stockton,

146.
Stone- Acton, 14.
Stottesden Hundred, 1, 168, 258-9, 260.

Manor, 70, 227.

Stratton (Leicestershire), Soke of, 224,

225, 236.
Stretton Castle and Manor, 83.
Sundorn, 82.
Sutton (Maddock), 8, 89, 64, 92 n, 93,

97, 103-142, 145, 146, 147, 190, 312,

818-9, 821.
Chuboh op (St. Maby's), 89,

112, 120, 186, 187-142.

, Berdelei Wood, 116.

Haye, 119.

f Mill of, 119, 122.

Wood, 119, 124.

Swavesey (Cambridgeshire), 210, 218, 219.
Swinnbt (Broseley), 88-88.

Tedstill, 190.

Tehidy (Cornwall), 284, 293.

Tewkesbury Abbey, 269, 802.

Thorney Abbey (Cambridgeshire), 106 ft.

Thouars (Poitou), 211.

Tibberton, 314 ft, 326 ft.

Tiggedun (Cornwall), 288.

Tono, 21,41, 108, 174, 176, 177, 183, 186,

181-257, 281 », 327.
Chubgh, 91, 192, 200, 212, 217,

247-267, 816, 330.

846

INDEX OF PLACES.

Tong, Honour of, 177 ft, 192, 826.
, The Brand, or Barnde, 220ft, 223.

-, Brodmore, 223.

-, Holly Park, 221.

-, Le Pas, 220ft.

-, Luttleford, 220 », 223.

-, Merdioh, 204, 205, 206.

-, The Mere, 205.

-, Mill, 210, 237.

-, The Pole, 223.

-, Scherley, 220 ».

-, Shaw, 220, 326.

-, Trenswall, 220 ft.

-, Timlet Bridge, 221 ft.

-, Tylemonslode, 221, 238.

Tong-Castle, 211, 253, 254.

Tong-College, 240, 253.

Tong-Norton, 207, 220, 236, 326.

Tong-Wood, 211, 222.

Touraine, 70.

Trayford (Sussex). 267.

Tbelwabdyite (Shiffhal), 311-312, 321,

826.
Tudeworth, v. North Tudeworth.
Tweedmouth, 102.

UHingwyke (Herefordshire), 230, 233,

234, 235, 236, 239, 240.
Uppington, 132, 133, 135, 187.

Chapel, 138.

Upton (Shiffnal), 217 ft, 218, 220-1, 247,

299, 800, 809, 315, 319, 320, 326-

329, 380, 334 ft.

, Binstun, 327.

, Blakenhull, 327.

, Brunestree, 827.
, Haghul, 828.

Verlay (Normandy), 47 ».
Verona, 188.

Waldo (Sussex), 290.
Wales, 198, 202 ft.
Wales, Marches of, 107, 195-7, 295.
Walkerslow, 7, 21, 87.
Walle under Heywood, 55.
Waltham (Hants), 197.
Walthamstow (Essex), 253 n.
Walton (Lichfield Dioc.), 336.

Warwick, 227.

Water-Eyton (Staffordshire), 21.
Watling-Street, 204, 205, 206, 299.
Wattldsborough, 307-8.
Wellington, 83.

, Haye o^ 310,

Wells Cathedral, 36.

Wenlock, Church and Parish o£ 33, 35,

42, 59-60, 76, 79.
, Deanery o£ 84, 59, 77 ft, 78.

, Liberty o^ 1, 2, 19, 22, 23,36,

41, 48, 56, 59, 61, 69.

, Manor o£ 36, 39, 43.

, Much, 10, 77.

Priory, 4, 6, 17, 86, 42 », 48,

44, 52, 59-61, 63, 68, 69, 78, 79, 80 ft,

101, 198.
Wenlock, Little, 77,
Wentnor, 154.
West-Bradley, v. Bradley.
Weston, Cold, 816 ft.
juxta Cammel (Bath and Wells

Dioc.), 184.

(under Lizard), 86, 187, 264 ».

(under Bed-Castle), 113, 116.

(sub-Edge, Gloucestershire), 225,

227, 228, 230, 232, 238.

Westminster, passim.

Wheathill, 35.

Whiston (Albrighton), 88, 164, 157.

Whitchurch, 122, 333.

Whittington, 3, 11, 12.

Wich, 174, 259, 284 ft.

Wiches, The (of Cheshire and Worcester-
shire), 174 », 284 ft, 293.

Wioh-Malbank (Cheshire), 284 ft.

Wigmore, 227, 228, 229, 231.

Wigwig, 46, 47.

Wilbrighton (Staffordshire), 207.

Wilderhope, 56.

Wileby (Herefordshire), 20.

Wili (Wilts), 268, 275-6, 282.

Willet, 1, 23, 45-81, 120, 305, 307.

Chuboh, 59-61, 77.

Willey (Hertfordshire), 68 ».

Wily-Bechampton (Wilts), 290.

Winchester, 227, 229, 263, 294.

Windsor Castle, 31, 199, 214.

- Forest and Park, 81, 36.

Winterburne (Basset, Co. Wilts), 268,
281, 284, 285, 294, 296.

Church, 269, 270, 278, 299.

INDEX OF PERSONS.

847

Wistanstow, 198.

Witoford (Devonshire), 284, 292.

Wombridge Forest, 118.

Wombridge Priory, 40, 85, 91, 92, 112,
114, 115, 117-122, 129, 130, 181, 132,
133, 137-140, 141, 146, 273, 278-280,
282-3, 284 n, 298, 300, 312, 313-315,
317-818, 819, 823, 326, 329, 336.

Church, 139, 203, 313.

— — Grange, 817.

Woneston (Gloucestershire), 225, 285 «.

Woodcote, 266.

Woodhoubb (Shiflhal), 299, 312, 319-
820.

Woodstock, 201.

Wootton, 142.

Worcester, 64, 118, 154, 186, 245, 259.

Worcester, Church ot, 260.

Worfe (River), 70, 87, 93,172,221, 299.

Worfield, 64, 76, 258-9.

Wotton (Lichfield Dioc), 184.

Wrickton, 7, 19, 21, 87.

Wrockwardine, 122, 319,* 820.

Wroxeter Church, 280.

Wycombe (Bucks), 284, 296.

Wtke (Shiflhal), 299, 800, 310-311,

812, 321, 329, 384.
Wyneston, v. Woneston.
Wythiford, Little, 177.

Yale-Castle (North-Wales), 106.
York, 158, 160, 239.

INDEX OF PERSONS.

%* In the following Index, Names which belong to Official Lists arc classified
in order of succession, not alphabetically.

Where such Lists have been already given, in the body of the work, the Index
makes general reference thereto, but does not repeat the individual Names, unless they
have occurred in some other connexion.

Aaron, Jew of Lincoln, 176.
Aaron, John, Rector of Broseley, 85.
Aohi (T. R. E.), 258.
Ackleton, Thomas de, 71.
Acton, John de, 10.
Adam, Priest, 67 ».

Saoardos, 176 «.

Aguillon, Manasser, 278 ft.

Alan, Chaplain (Wyke), 810, 888.

Alan, Clerk (fefftv), 278*.

Alberburi, Fuloo de, 14, v. Fits Warin.

Alberic, 149.

Albini (of Belvoir), William d\ 205.

Albrighton, Adam le Serjant de, 157.

, Elyas de, 157.

, Incumbents of, 160, 161, 264.

Albrighton, Nicholas, Priest o( 112 », 158,
160.

, Ranulf de, 157, 248.

, , Alioe, wife of, 157,

248.

— , Riohard de, 167.
— > Robert Fit* Agnes de, 157.
— , Siward de, 167.
— , Thomas de, 157, 188.
-, Walter, Clerk of, 157.

Albus, John (of Cotesford, Oxon), 83.

Aloher,212ft.

Aldenham, John de, 81.

Alditone, Robert de, 71.

Aldred, 278«.

Alfwin (Upton), 827.

Algar, 149.

348

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Algar, Earl of Mercia, 149, 258 qnaler.

Alimund, Adam, 323 ».

Almoner (of Henry II), Brother Boger,
the, 138*.

Alsi, 258.

Aluric, 258. *

Angevin, Bobert, 133 n.

Apley, John de, 317 ».

Ardene, Banulf de, 32, 83.

Arlscott, Bobert de, 37.

Arras, Balph d', 18, 37.

Arroasia, Canons of, 204, 205, 206.

Arundel and Chichester, Earls of, Mont-
gomery, v. Shrewsbury, Earls of.

, D'Albini, 278*.

, , Wil-

liam (I), 202 », 273, 274.

wa-

liam (HI), 278.
Arundell, Adam dc, 11.

, Boger de, 206 ».

Ashby, Walter de, 205.
Ashley, Adam de, 15, 16 5w, 32.

, Bobert, Provost of, 15.

, , John and William, sons

of, 15.

, William de, 14, 32.

-, Adam, son o£ 31.

Astall, Geoffrey de, 176.

, Philip de, 70*.

; , Richard de, 70 ».

-, Bobert de, 183.

Atterlegh, Bobert ie, Sector of Tong,

180 », 251.
Atte-Townsend, Adam, 119.
Audley, De, 164*.

, Nicholas de, 244.

Azor, 268 bit.

Badger (of Brockton), family of, ,

93, 130-181, 131 n.

, Richard de, 99 n, 125**, 130.

, Biohard de (II), 130.

, Boger de (son of William), 94 #,

95, 99 fi, 119 n, 127, 130, 131, 298 «.

, Thomas de, 130.

, William de, 15, 94 », 102 », 112 »,

119 », 124 », 125, 126 *, 130.

, William de (son of Roger), 130,

131.

Badger (of Brockton), William de (III),

180.
Badger, Alan, Rector of, 72, 78.

, Incumbents of, 78-80.

, Philip Fit* Stephen de, 63-69, 74.

f f • • • • Grandfather o£

64,65.

, Philip de (II), 65, 72, 73, 74.

, Philip de (III), 65, 74, 75, 78, 87.

, Philip de (IV), 65, 76, 79.

, Philip de, Clerk, 65, 76, 78.

, Reginald de, 65, 68.

, Richard de, 65, 75 *.

, , Margery, wife o£ 65.

, Bobert, Domesday Tenant o£ 61,

62,63.

, Boger de, 65, 68-71, 126 ».

, , Philip, son of, 66, 71.

66.

-, Boger, Clerk o£ 67 », 70 », 78.
-, Boger de (of Cleobury North), 76.
-, Stephen, Father of Philip de, 64,

-, Thomasde(I),18,66,71,72, 73,76.

, , Margery de Beysin, wife

of, 65, 71, 72.

, , Avioe, daughter of, 66.

* * * *, daughter of (wife

1 >

of Henry Mauyeysin), 65.

, Thomas de (II), 65.

— , Anabel, wife o£ 65, 76,

78, 79.

, Willam de, 62, 63, 66, 130.

-, William de (II), 65, 79, 93.

Badlesmere, Bartholomew de, 301, 336.

1 — — —j Margaret,

wife otf 836, «. TJmfravilL

, Giles de, 337 n.

Elizabeth, sister of,

337 n, v. Northampton, Earls of.
Bagot (of BlymhiU), John (I), 203, 207,

264 n.

, John (II), 12, 25, 26, 186.

, , Margery, wife o£ 12,

218, v. Burwardsley.

-, Margery, daughter o£

12, v. Covene.

-, Philippa, daughter of,

12, v. Bromley.

• • • •

, daughter of, 12,
v. Ipstones.
, William, son of John (I), 263,

264 ».

INDEX OF PERSONS.

349

Bagot (of Blymhill), Boger, John, and

Thomas, brothers of John (II), 264 «.
Bangor, Bishop o£ Herrey, 196.

, , David, 199.

Bardolph, Hugh, Dapifer, 188 «.
Bartholomew, Clerk of King John, 286.
Baskerrille, Hugh de, 23.
Baekerville (of Herberbnry), Ralph de,

152.
, y Burga, daughter

of, 162.
Basset, Family of, 296-7.

, Balph, Justice of England, 296.

, , Gilbert, supposed son o£

296.
Basset Thomas (of Colinton), 279 «,

280 •, «#, 281, 284, 286, 287, 292,

M&let.

, , Johanna, daughter of, 292,

297, «. Valletort.

-,Philippa, daughter of,

296, t>. Warwick.
, , Philippa, wife of, 284 ft,

296, «. Malbank.
Basset, Thomas (of Hedendon), 278, 288,

284, 296.
, , Alice de Dunstanvill, wife

of, 278, 284, 285, 292, 296.
, , • • • • daughter 0^284,

297, e. Creoun and Greeley.

-, Gilbert (ofHedendon), 276 ft, 283,

284, 285, 286, 287, 291, 292, 296.
, , Egeline, wife o£ 296.

, — — , Eustaehia, daughter of,

284, 287, 291, 296, «. CamrilL
Basset (of Wycombe and Winterburn),

284,296.
, Alan, 279 is 281, 284, 285, 286*,

294,296.
Basset, Osmund, 288 ft, 297.

, , John, son of, 283ft, 297.

, , 9 William, son of,

288,297.

, , , , Cecily, wife

of, 283*, 284 ft, 297, *. DunstanviU.

Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 251-2.

, , Robert Bur-

nell «. Bunnell.

Bauds, William de, 66 ft.

Beauchamp, William de, 64, 110.
II.

Beckbury, Hugh de (I), 15, 70, 71, 91 oa,
94ft, 102«, 108«, 116ft, bis, 124ft,
125, 126 ft, 181, 182, 184, 170, 217 ft.

, , Alina, wife of, 133, 134.

, Hugh de (II), 180 «, 181, 138,

185, 186, 178, 228 ft, v. Hadinton.
, 1 Huota, daughter o( 133,

135, 136.

, 1 Johanna (or Ida), wife

of, 188, 136.

, — , Thomas, son of, 136.

, John de (I.) 18, 71, 131, 132,

220 ft, 328 «.

, John de (1844) 79, (1808-9)

829 ft.

, — , John, son of (Clark), 79.

, Philip de, 28, 86, 119 ft, 132,

155, 322 m, 329 ft, 880».

, Richard, Chaplain of, 70 ft.

, Thomas de, 86.

•, Warner de, 50.

Becket, Thomas a, v. England, Chancel-
lors of.

Belcher, Ralph le, 264*.

BettWago, Amaury de, 273 ft.

Belmeis, alias Beaumes, Family of, 206 ft,
208-209, 241.

Belmeis, of Donington and Meadowley,
175-180, 185, 208-209, 241.

, Hugh de, 179, 180, 209, 238 ft.

— — — , , Helene, wife of, 180.

, , John, brother of, 179, 180,

209.

9 f } John,sonof;i80,209.

, Johnde, 155,178-9,209, 244,246.

, Richard de (I), 175, 176, 183 ft,

206ii, 208, 218,238, 241.

, , Philip, brother of; 176 ft,

206.

, Richard de (II), 176, 208.

, Roger de, 177, 178, 209.

, Walter de, 71, 176, 177, 178, 181,

208, 218, 220 ft.

, , Johanna, wife of, 177, 178,

208.

, William de, 169, 175, 208, 241.

Belmeis, Lords of Tong, 175, 185, 218 ft,

218 ft.

, Richard (I) de (Bishop of Lon-
don), 174, 175 ft, 182, 191-201, 202,
206, 206, 247, 266.

, , Avelina, sister of, 208.

850

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Belmeis, William son of Arelina de,
Dean of St. Paul's, 200, 208.

, * * • sister of Biahop Richard

(I) de, wife of * * * de Langford, 208.
-, Ralph de Langford, son

of, Dean of St. Paul's, 208.

, Walter de, brother of Bishop

Richard (I) de, 201, 208.

-, William de, (presumed brother

of Biahop Richard I), t. Beimels, of
Donington.

-, Philip de (I), 175, 201-206, 208,

211, 212, 218, 221, 247.

, Matilda, wife of, 203,

205, 208. v. Mcschin.

-, Richard (II), brother of,

Bishop of London, 201, 204, 205,
206 «, 208, 273 ».

-, Robert, supposed brother

of, 203, 208, vide infra, Robert (I).
-, Philip de (II), 176, 203, 204,

206, 208, 211, 212, 217, 241.

-, Ranulf de, 203, 206 », 207, 208,

210, 212, 217, 218.

, , Adelicia, sister of, 208,

210, 211, 212, 217.

, William de, son of Adelicia,

212 «, v. La Zouche.

-, Philip, brother of, 212 »,

v. La Zouche.
Belmeis, Younger branch of, holding lands

at Tong, Stanwey, Ac. 241-246.
, Henry de, 179 », 180, 181, 209,

238 n, 246.

, , John, son of, 209, 246.

, , , Tecia, wife of, 209,

246.

, Hugh de (Valet of Henry III),

21, 86 bis, 87, 157, 167, 178, 179, 209,

243-246.
, , Isolda, wife of, 209, 244,

246.

, Robert de (1), 176, 203, 208, 241.

, , William, supposed son

of (Canon of St. Paul's), 206», 208, 241.
-, Robert de (II), 206 », 208, 241-

242, 279 », 306 ».

, Robert de (III), 209, 2-12-243,

244.

-, Matilda, wife of, 209,

2 13, 244.

, William de, 208, 223, 242.

Belmeis, Alan de, 178.
Belmeis, Philip de (c. 1223), 177, 218.
Benefford, Gerard de, 246.
Benthall, Philip de, 24.

, Philip le Mouner de, 24.

, Robert de, 23, 24.

j f Hugh, brother of, 23, 24.

, William de, 15.

Bere, De la, 257.
Bermingham, 255, 257.
, Henry de, 239.

-, Matilda de, 226, 239.

Bernehoud, Robert, 319, 828.

Berner, 258.

Berneres, Robert de, 286.

Bernevall, Gilbert de, 281.

Besselawe, Roger de, 183 *.

Betterton, Robert de, 223.

Beysin, Adam de (I), 7, 12, 18, 22, 71 bit.

1 1 Mabel, wife of, v. Bur-

wardsley.

— , Margory, daughter of,

12, 18, 19, c. Badger.

, Adam de (II), 12, 18.

, John de, 13.

, , Anna, second wife of, 13>

o. Latymer.
, , Elizabeth, daughter of,

13, v. Cherlton.

, , Margaret, first wife of,

13, «. Mortimer.

, Robert de, 13, 18, 19-21, 26, 245.

, , Isabel wife of, 13, 21,

243, 244-5, v. Bret and Turberville.

, Richard de, 11.

, Robert de (of Arlscott), 87.

, Thomas de, 13, 25, 31.

, Walter de (I), 13, 21, 37, 55 «,

329 n.

■, , Alice, wife of, 13,

v. Burnel.
-, Walter de (II), 13.
. f f Alice wife of, 13.

, Warin de, 18, 19, 22, 36, 37.

, , Margaret, daughter

of, 37.
Bideston, William de, 290.
Bidun, Walter de, 66 n.
Bigedune, William de, 66 n.
Biggenever, Ralph de, 278 n.
Binelard, John de, 236.
Biset, Manasser, 64.

INDEX OP PERSONS.

351

Biset* Heniy, 215.

, John, 233.

, Isolda, 288.

Bishton (or Bishopeston), Family of,
166-167.

, Henry de (1221), 181.

, Henry de (1253-6), 167.

, f John son o£ 87, 155 »,

167.

-, Robert eon of, 167.

-, John son of, 167.

, John Clerk of, 28, 155 n, 167.

, John de Aula de, 167, 179 ».

, Peter de, 167.

Bles, Richard dee, 67 ft.
Blie, Geoffrey de, 212 ft.
Blnet, Gilbert, 298, 313.

, , Alice, wife of, 313.

, Henry, 319.

Blund, Ranulf le, 67 ».

, Thomas, 96.

Blymhill, Master Thomas de, 86.

, William de, 180 ».

Bobbington, John Fitz Philip de, 300 ft,
Bobur, Roger, 87.
Bolinghale, Henry de, 169.

, Hugh de (1203), 70 ».

, , Nicholas, Brother of,

70», 170, 806 ».

, Hugh de (1228-38), 220 ».

-, Hugh de (1250-70), 28, 38,

130 ft, 167, 178, 183, 223 », 380 ».
, Walter de (Monk of Build-

i), 217.
Body, Robert, 145, 146.

, , Hawise, wife of, 146.

Bohun, Enjuger de, 216.

, Savaric de v. Savaric.

, William de v. Northampton,

Earl of.
Bon-Yalet, Walter, 15.
Bordeaux, Oliver de, 237.
Bosoo, Geoffery de, 20.
, , Margery, wife o£ 20.

-, Hamo de, 278 ».
-, Thomas de, 23.

Bosleie, Bernard de, 2 ».
Boterell, William (of Alcester), 6.
Boterell, Thomas (of Aston), 21, 316.
Botiller, Hamo le, 38.

, John le, 42.

Bottesfeld, William de, 73.

Bottesfeld, John, Brother of William de,

73.
Brabant, William de, 197.
Bradley, Warin de, 16.

, Warner de, 10.

Braose, William de, 177 ft, ^92, 213, 214.

Bray, Adam de, 32.

Breant, William de, 218.

Brerlecton, Heliis de, 67 ft.

, Thomas de (of Staunton,

Shiffnai), 319.
Bret, John le, 144, 145.

, Philip le, 13, 19, 21.

, f Isabel, daughter of, 13, 19,

v. Beysin.
Bretun, William le, 10.
Brewood, Blaok Nuns of; 187, 188 », 190ft,

221.
, Isabel Launder, Prioress o£

188 ».

-, White Nuns of, 180, 187-190.
-, Prioress of the, 177,

178, 179, 183, 239.

189.

190.

-, Alditha, 189.
-, Cecilia, 189.
— , Agnes, 189.
-, Joan de Huggeford)

— , Alice de Harlegh,

— , Beatrice de Dene,

, , , Margaret, 190.

Brictstual, 80.

Bridport, Master Giles de, 300.
Brimstree, William, Beadle of, 155.
Brimton, Adam de, 10.
Brisebon, Nicholas, 43, 44.

y 9 Hugh, son of, 44.

, , Roger son o£ 44, 121-

122, 140.
Brittany, Little, Earls or Dukes of, 3,

210, 219.
Brittany, Earl of, Alan, 210 ft.
, , f Geoffrey, father

of, 210 ».

ter of, 211.

-, Alan la Zouohe, 210 ft.
-, Conan le Petit, 211.
-, ^— , Constance, daugh-

212, 213.

-, Arthur Plantagcnct,

352

INDEX OF PKRSON8.

Britten, Ralph, dark, 119 ft.
Briwere, William, 98 ft, 213, 286.
Brockton (Long Stanton), John de, 87.
Brockton (Sutton), Agnes, daughter of
William de, 102.

, Henry de, 100.

, , Sibil, wife of, 100.

, Henry de (Vicar of), 141,

v. Sutton.

, Hugh, Chaplain of, 116 », 141.

, , Richard, Brother of,

115 », 141.

-, Ito de, 92*, 95, 99ft, 119fi,

120ii, 127, 130 ft, 131 «, 298 ft.
, John, Clerk of, 119, 121, 187,

146.

-, Osbert of, 126.
-, Richard Fitz Edith of, 131.
», Richard Fitz Ito of, 146.
-, Richard, Priest of, 125.

, Margaret, daughter of,

125, 126.

, Robert de, 126 ft, 138 ft.

, Sibil de, 126.

, , John son of, 126, 129 ft.

— , Agnes wife of, 126.

9 9

, Thomas de, 96, 119 ft, 120 ft,

131, 298 ft, 313, 329 ft.

-, John son of, 122 ft, 313 ».

Broke, Richard de la, 117 ft.
Bromfield, Master Adam de, 53.
Brompton, Brian de, 61.
, , Margaret, daughter of,

51, v. Harley.
Bromley, Benedict de, 15.

, Geoffrey de, 12, 15, 25, 26, 27.

, , Philippe, wife of, 12,25,

26, 27, v. Bagot.

•, John de, 13.

-, Robert de, 13.

Broseley v. Burwardsley.

, Incumbents of, 83, 34-36.

Brag, Dean of, 54.

Brug, Prior of St. John's at, 147.

Bruges, Richard de, 133.

, , Sibil wife of, 133, v.

Mussun.

— , , Great Grandson of, 138,

, Master Robert of, Clerk, 322 ft.

Brun, Henry, 33.

, Richard, 83.

, Roger, 10.

Bruniht, 61, 93.

Buberel, Henry, 282.

Buildwas, Alan de, 175 ft, 264*.

Build was, Abbot and Oonrcnt of, 14, 88 »,

160, 171, 172, 173, 175, 188, 202-204,

217, 221, 238, 250, 263-4, 811, 816, 827,

834.

, Stephen, Abbot of, 89.

, Nicholas, Abbot of, 172, 220,

299.

, Stephen, Abbot of, 264.

, Monks of, Adam, Geoffrey and

Brother Roger, 175 ft.
Burcham (Sussex), Harold, Priest of,

273 ft.
9 J Robert, Brother of,

273 ft.
Bures, Beatrice de, 189.

, Peter de, 276.

Burgo, De, 164.

Burgo, Bertram (I) de, 84.

, , Helisant, wife of,

, Bertram (II) de, 84.

, Bertram (III) de, 84, 88.

, Philip de, 84.

, , Alice wife of, 84, «. Stretton.

Burhred, 1.

Buri, Richard de la, 183.

Burnell, Family of; 97.

, Hugh, 13.

, , Alice, daughter of, 13.

-, Philip (1291), 101.

, Richard, 101, 102, 127, 128,

131 ».

, , Alianore, wife of, 127,

128 ft, v. Sanford.
, Robert (Bishop of Bath and

Wells), 97, 99, 100, 101, 133, 184,

187 ft, 823.

, William (1278), 236.

, William (of Langley), 102.

, , Edward son of, 102.

, , , Margaret Lee, wife

of, 102.
Burwardsley, Anian de, 22, 28, 24.

, Denys de, 24.

, , Adam son of, 24.

, , Roger son of, 24, 38.

, John de, 17, 24, 82.

, , John son of, 22.

-, Philip de(Brother of Warm),

5,12.

INDEX OY PERSONS.

353

Burwardsley, Philip de (son of Warin),
9-12, 14-18, 32, 71, 108*, 126 *, 128.

, , Emma, wife of, 12,

14, 18, 22, 28.

-, Soger de, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18,

20,26.

-, Warm de, 6-9, 12, 17, 18, 22,
40, 69, 115 », 126*, 128.

-, Alice, daughter of, 9,

12, 18, 21, 22, 24, 87, e. Eyton.

-, Mabel daughter of,

7, 9, 12, 18, 19, 22 », 36, e. Beysin.

-, — — , Margery daughter of,

9, 12, 18, 25-29, 218. v.Bagod.

, William de, 16.

-, William Fits Warin de, 8,

4, 5, 12.

-, William son of Baldwin de,

16 n.

-, William, Parson of, 16, 84.

Butevill, Geoflrey and Oliver de, 288.

Cadeleg, Robert de, 169.
Cadagane (Sutton Maddook), 112 n.
Caisneto, Roger de, 272 ».
Oaleweton, Walter de, 35.
Camyill, Gerard de, 82*, 287.

, Nichola de Hay, wife of,

82 ».

-, Richard de, 284, 287, 296.

-, Eustaohia, wife of, 284,

287, 296.

-, Idonea, daughter of, 291,

296.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 274.

, Anselm, 195, 196.

, Ralph, 198.

Gantflupe, Margaret, wife of John de, 209,
233, 0. Zouohe.

— , William de, Junior, 215.

, , Milisent, wife of, 215.

Cantreyn, John de, 23, 24.

Ganyile, William, 38.

Carbonel, William (of Ashford), 67 it.

Cardiffe, William, 212 ft.

Cardinal, John the (1206), 138 ».

Cardunull, Adam de, 290.

Carles, Family o£, 89.

, Hugh, Rector of Badger, 79.

, John, 180 n.

, Nicholas, 80, 156», 157, 244.

, , Burgia, wife of, 157, 244.

, Roger, 88, 156, 167, 160, 179 «,

238 a, 317 n.
-, William, 90.

Carmarthen, Peter de, 824.
, , Alice de Kenley, wife

of, 324, r. Kenley.
Carpenter, Robert, 66 n.
Carpenter, William, 16, 32.
Carter, Walter (of Routhton), 311.

, , Alice wife of, 311.

Oastello. (of Holgate), Herbert de, 203,

204, 205, v. Helgot.
9 , Nicholas, brother of,

203.
Castello (of Idaall), Richard de, 299,

318-9.
, , Emma (de Haughton),

wife of, 318, 321, e. Haughton.
Caudrell, Badul£ 212 ».
Caughley, Philip de, 44, 46.
, , Margery de Presthope

(wife of), 44.

-, Ralph de, 16, 24, 28, 37 Kr

201.

-, William Curboil, 199, 200,

43,44,46.

-, Richard de, 16.

-, Theobald, 831 «.

-, Thomas, 381 », t>. England,

Chancellors of,

, Baldwin, 138, 882.

, Hubert Walter, 188*.

, Boniface, 832*.

, John do Peeham, 182*, 382.

-, Thomas Fits Alan, 140.

-, Dean o£ 197.

Cantilupe, 166*.

, John de, 209, 225-6, 233.

Chabbenore, Thomas de, 217.
Chamberlain, Robert, 66 *.
Champeneys, William, 157.
Chancellors, «. England.
Charles, Reginald, 324.
Chatculne, William, Clerk of, 15.
Chaucumb, Hugh de, 285.
ChaTel, Engeram, 218.
Chedney, 283.
Chend, Samson de, 67 *.
Cheney, William de, 89.
Cherleton, Alan de, 209.

354

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Cherleton, Elene la Zouehe, wife of Alan

de, 209.
, Sir John de, of Powis, son

of Alan de, 324, 825.

-, Alan de, of Apley, son of

Alan de, 324, 325, 326.

-, John de, Rector of Wrock-

wardine, 324.

-, Master John de, 800 n.

Cherlton (of Uppington), Adam de, 133.

— '. , — , Alice wife of,

133, v. Mussun.
Cherlton, Roger de, 13.
, , Elizabeth wife of, 13,

v. Bey sin.
Qhernese, Reginald de, 817 ».
Chester, Bishop of, v. Lichfield.
Chester, Ranulph (I) Earl of, 205 ».
, — , William, Brother

of, v. Meschines.

-, Ranulph Blundevill Earl of,

284 n.

Chesthull, Richard de, 133 n.
Chetwynd, Family of, 48, 56 «, 307.
-, Adam de, 48.

, Reginald de, 807.

, Roger de, 307.

-, John de, 56, 57.

, John de (1300), 308.

Chichester, Bishop of, 195.

. , , Ralph, 194.

~, , Hillary, 278 ».

, Archdeacon of, Henry, 278 *.

Chop, or Job, of Haughton, Robert, 821 n.
Clare, De, 164 *, 836 «.

, Margaret de, v. Badlesmere.

darembald, Clerk, 200.
deton, John de, 99.

— , , Alice, wife of, 99.

Clifford, Walter Juvenis de, 67 ».

, , Richard, brother of,67n.

. , . •, Rosamond, sister of,67».

, Walter (III) de, 296.

-, Maud, daughter

of, 296, v. Longespee.
Clinton, Ivo de, 55 n.
Clodeshale, Richard, 79.

, -, Alice wife of, 79.

done, Robert de, 311, 313 n.

, , Mabel, wife of, 811.

Codrell, Elias, 212 «.
Coleham, Ranulf de, Clerk, 812.

Coleshnll, John de, 324 ».
Colle, Hugh, 326 ».

, Richard, 313 n.

Cnulle, Ralph de, 67 n.
Cocus (of Brockton), 129-130.

, Helias, 94 », 112 », 115 «, 119,

125, 126 n, 129.
, Robert, 102 », 115, 123, 125 »,

126 n, 129.
, William, 94 », 95, 119, 125, 129,

130.
Cocus (of Lee), Richard, 313 ».

f Walter, 312 », 313 ».

Cocus, Roger, 313 n.
Codshall, Master Thomas de, 119 ».
Cold (or Colt), Alexander le, 96.
Colington, Philip de, 67 ».
Collet, Robert, 228.
Constantine, Richard de, 53.

, Thomas de, 22, 119 ».

, William de, 206 ».

Corbet (of Caus), Roger, 196 n.

, Robert, 53.

, Thomas, 22 », 55, 136, 137 *.

-, Peter, 154.

Corbet (of Longden, Ac.), Robert, 196 *.
Corbet (of Wattiesborough and Moreton),

49, 307.

, Richard, 806.

, Richard, son of Richard, 306, 307.

-, (Joan) Toret, wife of,

807, v. Toret.
, Robert, 122 », 298 n «*, 307-309,

321.

-, Thomas, 309, 329 *.

Corbett (of Habberley and Longnor),88 »,

89.
Corbet (of Hadley, Tasley, &c.), Robert,

226, 289, 240.

, Matilda, wife of, 226,

239.

-, Roger (I), 116 », 280 ».

-, Roger (II), 119 ».

-, Roger (III), 122 w, 817 », 326 »,

829 n.

, Thomas (I), 18, 22, 119 ».

-, Thomas (II), 122 », 298 », 823 ».

Corbrond, • * * (husband of Juliana
Mussun), 133.

, Richard, their Great-Grand-
son, 133.

Corfhul, Roger de, 37.

INDEX OF PERSONS.

355

Costenteine, William de, 206 », v. Con-
stantino.

Coterel, William, 91.

Courtney, Egelina de, 296, v. Basset.

Covene, Osbert de, 23.

Covene, Ralph de, 12, 22, 23, 25-29.

, , Margery wife of, 12,

25-29, v. Bagot and Drayton.

-, Alioe daughter of, 13,

«. Penford and Sany.
Coventry, Bishops of, v. Lichfield.

, William, Prior of, 139.

Crasset, Henry, 172 », 264.
, Richard, 150, 263.

, William (circa 1200), 170, 268.

, William (1272), 173, 264.

Creoun, Wido de, 284, 297.

, , • * • Basset, wife of,

284, 297, v. Basset.
Creswell, William de, 169.
Crispin, Joceline, 283.
Cude, or Xeede, Stephen son of William,

98, 99, 127, 128.

, William, 98 ft, 127, 128.

, , Felicia wife of, 127.

, , Sibil and Margery,

daughters of, 128.
Cuilli, Hugh de, 205.
Cumbrevill, Hugh de, 271.

> , Roger and Rainald de

InBula, brothers of, 271.
Cumbwell, Hugh de, 290.
Curd, William de, 278 ft.
Cure, Osbert de, 67 ».

, Philip de, 67 ».

, William de, 67 ».

Cursor, Gerard, 278 ft.
Cutona, William de, 279 ft.
Cutuel, Ralph, Clerk, 16, 34.

Daniel, 66 ».

Dapifer, Robert (Sutton), 125 ft.

Dayenant, 166.

Daiyill (Davull, or Dauvffl), Reginald de,

112 », 279 », 281.
Dawley, William, Priest of, 112 ».
Dene, Alan de la, 16, 38.

, , Warner, son of, 16, 38.

-, Nicholas de, 21, 24> 88.

Derinton, Nicholas de, 16.

Despenser, 163.

Despenser (of Willey), Nicholas, 58, 59.

> , Christiana, wife of

58, v. Stalhere.

-, William, 21.

Devereui (of Idsall), John (circa 1272-

1289), 323 », 825, 330.
, John (circa 1809), 824 ft, 825 »,

826 ft, 330.
Devereux, William, 20, 22, 23.

-> , Matilda, wife of, 20-

28.

-, William, son of 23,

233.
Devises, Robert de, 319, 830.
-, Walter de, 826 ft, 830.

-, William de (circa 1250), 828 ft.
-, William, son of Robert de (1272),

319, 330.

-, William de (1280-1816), 313 »,

823 », 325 ft, 330.
Digby, Sir Kenelm, 192 ».
Distil, 66 «.
Diva, Wido de, 276.
Dodington, Adam de, 99 ».

, Robert de (1280), 99.

, , Isolda wife of, 99.

-, Robert de, 55 », 75 ft.

-, Thomas de la, 38.

Donington, Henry de Belton, Parson of,
184.

, Incumbents of, 183-184.

, James, Rector of, 183-4.

, Simon, Parson of, 183.

Doniton, Philip de, 214 ».

Donnyger, 137.

, William, 95.

Dore (Herefordshire), Abbot and Con-
vent of; 159, 160, 161.

Dover, Hugh de, 4.

, , Matilda wife of, 5.

Drayton, Adam de, 319.

, Alice de, 98 n.

Drayton, William de, 12, 26, 28-80.
s 9 Margery Bagod,

wife of, 12, 25, 28-30, v. Covene and

Bagot.
Drayton (Shiffhal), Alice de, 325.

, Thomas de, 325.

, William de, 325, t>. Pater-

Noster.
Dreiton, Robert, Dean of, 112.

356

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Dublin, Abbot of, Leonard, 280 ».

, Archbishop of, 187.

, Bishop of, Gregory, 199.

Dud, Henry, 310.
Duddelegh, Robert de, 811.
Dudmaston, Robert de, 172 ft.

f Walter de, 115 ft.

Dunning, 173.

Dunstanvill, Family of; 268-804, 809,

835 ».

, Alan de (I), 202 », 268,

271, 272-8, 274, 279, 297, 313,
335 ft.

-, Alan de (II), 272, 273, 278,

279 ft, 280 ft, 281, 283-4, 297.
, * • * * wife of,

283, 297, «. Langetot
, , Cecily, daugh-
ter of, 283 », 297, o. Basset.

-, Reginald de, Earl of Corn-

wall, 268, 273 ft, 275, 282, 283, 288,
302, 303, 834 ft.
— . — •— , Ghindred, sister

of, 269.

— , Henry Fits

Count, son o( 288.

-, , Ursula, alleged

daughter of, 282, 302, 803, 335 ft.

-, Herbert, bro-

ther of, 278 n, v. Fitz Herbert.

-, Reginald de, 268, 269, 271,

297.
— , , Adelina, wife

of, 268, 269, 270, 271, 297.

-, Robert de, 271-2, 278, 292,

297, 335 ft.

-, Walter de (I), 91, 112, 273

284, 285-287, 291, 292, 294 ft, 297,
305-6, 309, 313, 814, 317, 820, 325,
385 ft.

-,Hawise,atia* Sibil,

-, Alice, sister of,

273, 283-4, 285, 292, 296, v. Basset.

-, Walter de (II), 282, 284-

294, 297, 810, 815, 326, 333.

-, Petronilla,

wife of, 288 ft, 289 ft, 293-4, 297, v.
Fits Alan.

•, John, sup-

DunstanTiU, Walter de (III), 92, 119 ft,
130 ft, 131 ft, 274 ft, 293-300, 807, 310,
313, 818-9, 320, 327-8, 829.

_ jDioniaia^ife

of, 297, 299, 800.

297, 800.

-,Roese,wifeof,

-, Petronilla,

daughter of, 295, 297, 299 ft, 800, 301,

380.

-, Walter de (Rector of Ids-

all), 58, 112 ft, 115, 279 ft, 280 ft, 281,
334-5.

, William de, 273 ft, 885 ».

— , Walter brother

of, 273 ft, 835 ft.
Durham, Hugh, Bishop of, 138 ft.
Dynan, Hawise de, 4 ft, 12.

Eadmer, 195, 196, 197.

Edmer, (T. R. E.) 258.

Edric, (T. R. E.) 258 bis.

Edwin, Earl of Meroia, 173, 174 ft, 258.

Edwin (Stockton), 142.

Elmer, (T. R. E.) 258.

Ely, Hervey, Bishop of, 196.

Engelard, Chaplain, 55.

England, Chancellors of; Waldrio or Wal-
ter, 194 ft.

, Chancellor of, William Fits

Gilbert (under the Empress), 273 ft.

, Thomas aBecket,

posed son of, 92 it, 298 it.

5ft, 108.

129 ft.

-, Ralph de Nevill,
-, Robert Burnell,

97, ». Burnell.
England, Constable of, William de Bohun,

837, e. Northampton, Earl of.
England, Kings, Queens, and Princes of;—

E. Edward the Confessor, 2, 45, 61, 80,
93, 103, 104 », 142, 149, 166, 168,
173, 174», 191, 262, 265-305, 308.

K. William I, 108, 104, 149, v. Nor-
mandy, Duke of.

K. William Ruius, 80, 106, 182, 268.

K. Henry 1, 2, 47, 64, 81, 82, 106, 106,
107, 150, 182, 191, 192, 194-199,
201, 202 », 267, 269», 271, 273,
331.

INDEX OF P1E80NS.

357

England, Kings, Queens, and Princes o£ —
{continued.)
K. Henry I, Adelisa, wife of, 199.

, Matilda, daughter of, 48*,

106,269ii,270,271,273.

-, William, son of, 195.

K. Stephen, 48 «, 107, 182, 202, 269,

270, 831.
K. Henry II, 5, 64, 102, 108, 109, 110,
112, 132, 137, 138, 182, 202 ft,
207, 210, 211, 271, 273, 275, 277,
331, 335.

, G«offrey,son of, 211,212.

, , Constance, wife

of, 211, 212.

-, Arthur, son of,

212.

-, Henry, son of, 275.

K. Richard I, 7, 8, 113, 138, 151, 169,

263 », 276, 277, 284, 285, 287,

291-2.
, John, Earl of Moreton,

brother of, 8, 276, 288 n.
K.John, 151, 185, 186, 187, 192,

212-13, 214, 215, 283, 287, 288,

294 «, 335.
K. Henry III, 9, 99 », 129 n, lH 182,

215, 216, 219, 228, 242-3, 289,

331.
, Isabella, sister of, wife

of the Emperor Frederick, 14,

117, 152, 220, 293.
, Edward, son of, 58, 242,

294.

, Edmund, son o£ 227.

, , Thomas, Earl

of Lancaster, son o£ 238.
E. Edward I, 232, 322.

, Eleanor, Queen of, 234,

235.
K. Edward II, 160 ».
K. Edward III, 198 n.
K. Richard II, 82*.
Ercalewe (or Hadley), William (II) de,
112«,279«ofr51.

1 f Pagan, brother oft

112«.

, , William, son of,

called "Minor" or "JuveiuV 133 w,
282, t>. William (III) de.
, William (III) de, 112 *, 115 *,

133*.

Ercalewe (or Hadley), Alan, brother of

William (III) de, 282.
— , Hamo, brother of William

(III) de, 112 *.

-, Richard, brother of William

(III) de, 112 «.

, William (II or III) de, 279

note 52.

119 ».

-, William (III or IV) de, 92,

, William (IV) de, 22.

, John de, 181 », 298 n.

, William (V), de, 55 *.

Erdinton, Giles de (Justiciar), 22, 223,

212.
Espele, Robert de, 124 *.
Essex, Earl of, Geoffrey de Manderille,

109, 110, 271.
, , Geoffrey Fits Piers, 294,

e. Fit* Piers.

-, William de Manderille,

278 ».
Essington, Robert de, 10.
Esthop, John de, 74 n.
Estwii, John de, 183.
Eswell, v. Astall.
Eton (Juxta Pitchford), Richard de,

155.
Ettingestal, William de Parco do, 155.
Evelith, Gerard de, 125 *, 218 n, 806,

827*, «. Toret.

, John, 307.

Evreux, Earl of; 216.

, , Milisent, widow of, 215.

Ewdness, Nicholas de, 147.
f Ralph de, 147.

-, Walter de, 71, 147.

Ewias, Roger de, 205.

Exeter, Bishop of, 72, 195.

, , William de Werelwast,

194 n.
Extraneus, v. Strange.
Eyton (of Water Eyton, Staffordshire)—

, John de (I), 12, 21.

Burwardsley.
f , Amimnj daughter o^ 12,

22.

II.

, John de (II), 12, 24.

, John de (III), 13, 24.

, John de (IV), 11 », 13, 24.

, Roger de, 12, 22-24, 83, 38.

358

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Eyton, Petronilla, daughter of Roger de,
13, 23, 24.

, Thomas de, 13, 25.

Eyton (on the Wildmoors) —

, Fulk, 254.

, Peter (I) de, 112, 279 », 280», ter.

f p e ter (II) de, 103 ».

, Peter (III) de, 87, 122 ft, 317,

323 ft, 326 ft.

Peter, son of, 317.

-, William de, 315.

. , Matilda, wife of, 315,

Faber, v. Smith.

Faleyse, Hugh de, 194, 202 ».

Farlow, Matilda de, 99.

Farlow, Philip de, 41, 98, 99, 100, 127.

, Wido (or Guy) de, 16, 40, 98.

, , Iseud, wife of, 40, 98, v.

Linley.
Ferrers, Earls, 152.

, William, Earl, 279 ft, 294.

Fits Adam, Robert (of Stanton), 326,

833.
Fitz Aer, Hugh le, 31.

, John le, 298 ft.

Fitz Alan, Family of, 95 «, 168, 257, 300.

, William (I), 82, 273 «, 280.

, , Walter, brother of,

273 ft.

-, William (II), 9, 40, 63, 64,

143, 288, 294.

-, Petronilla, daughter
of, 288 ft, 289 n, 297.

, John (I), 65, 289 is 334 ».

, John (II), 57, 85.

-, Richard, (Earl of Arundel),

307.

Fitz Alvie (of Brug), Alan, 17.
Fitz Avioe (of Brug), Henry, 117 n.
Fitz Bernard, Thomas, 6 ».
Fitz Count, Henry, 288, v. Dunstanvill.
Fitz Deremot, John, 153.
Fitz Eylward, Adam, 32.
Fitz Flaald, Alan, 196 n.
Fitz Geoffrey, Alan, 281, «. Zouche.
Fitz Gterold, Maurice, Justiciar, 153.

, Warin, 294.

Fitz Goderich, William, 16.
Fits Grent, Roger, 66 n.

Fitz Henry, Olfrid, 66 ».

Fitz Herbert, Herbert (II), 278 ».

Fitz Hugh, John, 286.

Fitz Hugh (of Bowlas), John, 31, 131 a,

298 ».
Fitz Hugh, Osbern, v. Bichard's-Castle.
Fitz John, Boger, 122 n.
Fitz Leyni, Grent, 66 ft.
Fitz Lofwin, Lofwin, 67 1».
Fitz Marscot, Hamo, 170.
Fitz Martin, Nicholas (Justiciar), 229.
Fitz Nicholas, Ralph, 152, 153.
Fitz Nicholas, Richard, 39.
Fitz Odo, Petronilla, 61, 63, v. Wililey.

, Philip, 203, 205.

, , Roger, brother o£ 205.

, Richard, c. Ryton.

, Roger, 53, 64.

-, Thomas, 63, 54.

Fitz-Osbert, Robert, 278 ft.

Fitz-Pagan, John, 178.

Fitz Peter, Herbert, 177.

Fitz Piers (Earl of Essex), Geoffrey, 69,

70, 186, 214.
Fitz-Ralph, William, 181.
(of Parra Lee), Richard, 315,

316.

(of Whitchurch), William,

333.

Fitz-Reginald, Robert, v. DunstanyilL
Fitz-Richard, Osbern v. RichardVQastle.
Fitz-Richard, William, 9.

, , Emma wife o£ 10.

Fitz-Robert (of Bowlas), Hugh, 22, 92 ft,

133ii.
Fitz Roger, Emma, 306.

(of Brockton), Richard, 126.

(of Upton), Richard, 329.

Fitz-Seman, William, 119 ft.
Fitz-Silvester, John (of Souldern, Oxon),

32,34.
, , Thomas, son of, 32,

33.
Fitz-Siward, Siward, 157.
Fitz-Tetbald, v. Tetbald.
Fitz-Thomas, Nicholas, 290.
Fitz-Thorold, Robert (of Brug), 72.

, , Philip son o£ 72.

Fitz-Toret, Peter, 53, 278 «, to t>. Toret.
Fitz-Tyrric, Henry, 45.

, , Sibil daughter of, 46.

Fitz- Walter, William, 66«.

INDEX OF PERSONS.

359

Fitz Warin, Family of, 8, 7, 11, 12, v.

Metz, Warin de.

, Fulk (I), 3», 4, 5.

, Fulk (II), 4 », 6, 12.

, , Hawise, "wife of, 4 «,

v. Dynan.

, Fulk (III), 10, 12, 14.

, Fulk (III or IV), 11, 26.

, Roger, 4, 12.

, Walter, 60, 169.

, Walter, 169 », 221.

, William, 3, 4, 5, 12, v. Bur-

wardsley.
Fits Warin (of Brictelegh, Devonshire),

William, 213, 214.
Fitz-Warin, Hugh, 278 *.
Fitz- William, Peter, 206 ».

, Philip, 206 w.

, Robert, 206 ».

(of Brug), Roger, 72 n.

Flamvill, Roger de, 212 *.
Flemeng, Henry le, 300*.
Folerilie, Geoffrey de, 806*, v. Frette-

ville.
Forcer, Henry le, 33 bis, 40, 41, 74 *, 99,

100, 101.

■ , , Burga, wife of, 41.

, , Roger, brother o£ 100.

, Thomas le, 42.

9 t Maud, wife of, 42.

-, William le (I), 15, 40, 99,

101.

e. Linley.

•, * * de Linley, wife of, 40,

-, Nicholas, brother of, 101.
, William le (II), 81, 41, 42, 179 »,

238 *.
Forde, Robert de, 316.

, William de, 316.

, , Joanna, mother of, 316.

Forester, Alexander le, 66 ft.

(of Bonington), Ranulph le,

178, 183-4.

(of Ashby), William, 211.

Fraunceys, William le, 242.

, , William, son o£ 242.

, , , Agnes, wife

of, 242.
Frederill, v. Fretterille.
Freford, William de, 237 ».
Fremon (Albrighton), Robert le, 86.
French (Brockton), Roger, 125.

Fretterille, Frolavill, or Fraleville, 280 %

306 n.

, Baldwin de, 278 », 281, 806 if.

, Roger de, 279 #, 280 », ow,

306 n.
Fretewell, Philip de, 33.
Fretherio, Chaplain, 67 ».
Freyill, Alexander de, 237.
Frerille, Baldwin de, 19.

, William de, 19.

Fulco, Clerk (Sutton), 112, 115.

, Sibil and Emma, daughters of, 115.

Furnellis, Alan de, 6 n.

damages, Godfrey de, 226, 227.
, , Eufemia, daughter o£

226,227.

of, 226.

-, Elizabeth, daughter

-, Lucia, daughter of,

226, 227.

-, Matthew de, 228, 229, 280.

Gayeston, Piers, 160 n, 238.

Geoffrey, Clerk, 67 1».

Germany, Emperor of, Frederick II, 14,

72.
Gernyn, John, son of John, 184.
Geryase GKxjh, 107-113, v. Sutton.
, Griffin, son o^ 8, v.

Sutton.
Gethne, (T.R.E.), 2.
Giffard (of Chillington), 165.
, Joan, a Nun of Brewood, 189.

-, John (circa 1280), 86 bis, 87.
-, John (1314), 237 *«
-, Peter, 178.
•, Thomas, 190.

Giffard, Sibil, 19, 20.

Gifihrd (of Brimmesfield), John, 122, 297.

, , Alianore, daughter

of, 122, v. Strange, of Blaokmere.

, Maud, wife of, 297,

v. Clifford.
Gilbert (testis), 278 «.
Girardyille, William Mallet de, 58 n.
GKros, Robert de (circa 1189), 203.

, Robert de (circa 1185), 68.

, Robert de (1219), 334.

Glanyill, Ranulph de, 138 #.
Glazeley, Alan de, 75 «.

360

INDEX OF PERSON8.

Gloucester, Walter, Constable of, 193.

, , Milo, son of, •. Here-
ford, Earls of.

Godebald the Priest, 201.

., Robert, son of, 201.

Godhit, 149.

Godrich (Broseley), 16.

, Quepith, daughter of, 17.

Godwin, 258.

Golding, Thomas, 299.

Got, John le, 16.

Grandison, Sir William, 156, 159.

, , Sibil, wife o£

156, 159, v. Tregoi.

Grane, Lucas de, 82.

Grendon, Bobert de, 127.

Grene (Brockton), Bichard de, 126.

Grenhu), John de, 28, 86 «, 92, 120*,
130 n, 131 », 312 «, 321, 328 ».

, Banulf de, 86, 87, 92, 829 ».

, Richard de, 86, 91, 92, 94 »,

130*, 172 », 298.

, Bobert de, 91, 279 ».

Gresley, Albert de, 284, 297.

, , * * * • BaSBet, wife o£

284,297.

-, Bobert, son of, 297.
-, daughters of, 297.

Gret, Philip de, 70.

Griffin, Geoffrey, 115 ft.

Griffith, Johanna, 226.

Grip, John, son of, 48.

Guest, Roger (of Priors Lee), 313.

, , Thomas, son of, 313.

Gust, Master Adam le, Rector of Idsall,
122 », 336.

Hadeleg, Roger de, 313 ».
Hadinton, Hugh de, 130 », 135.
Hadley, Family of; 165 ».

, Alan de, 282.

, William de, v. Ercalewe.

Hales, Peter de, 170.

, Roger de, 135.

Hammes, Hamo de, 290.

Halcton, v. Haughton.

Harcourt, Family of, 41 «, 192, 222.

, Henry de, 74.

, Henry de (1314), 237 ».

, John de, 237 ».

Harcourt, Richard de, 101, 222.

, William de, 101, 209, 222-224,

226, 233, 237, 244.

-, Alice, wife of, 209,

222, 223, 224, 237.

-, Margery, daughter of,

101, 209, 228, 224, 225, 233, v. Can-
tilupe.

-, Orabel, daughter of,

209, 223, 224, 225, 226, v. Pembruge.
, , Hillaria 2d wife of,

223,224,244.

-, Richard, son of, 223,
233,236.
Harley, Alice de, Prioress of Brewood, 189.
Harley, Henry de, 51.

, Malcolumb de, 51, 75, 800 «.

, Philip de (Rector of Willey), 51,

60.

-, Richard de, 31, 51, 58, 60.

-, , Burgia, wife of, 31,

61,60.

, Richard de, Clerk, 17.

-, Robert de, 51, 57 », 60.

-, , Margaret, wife of, 61.

-, William de, 55.

Harpoote, Walter de, 134.
Hartiahorn, Henry, Parson o£ 212 n.

, , Ralph, brother o^

212 ».
Hastings, Henry de (1258), 74.

, Henry de, his son, 223, 224

, , Hillaria, sister o£ 223,

224.

-, John de, 76.

-, William de, 278 *.

Haughmond, Abbot and Convent of^

278»,293.

, Richard, Abbot of, 280 ».

Haughton (Staffordshire), Family of, 63.

, Robert de, 10, 73, 298 n.

Haughton (Shiffnal), Alan de, 313 a,

319 », 321 ».

, Hugh de (I), 320, 327.

, Hugh de (II), 320, 328 n.

, Hugh de (III), 86, 87, 318,

821-324.

324, v. Kenley.

-, Alice, wife of, 323 to,
-, Roger (de Kenlcy),

son of, 822, 324.

, , Henry, son o£ 322.

INDEX OF PERSONS.

861

Haughton, Hugh, 0011 of, Hugh de (III),

325.

, Roger de (I), 281, 820.

, Sibil de, supposed wife of

Eoger (I), 281, 818, 820.

-, Eoger de (II), 183, 318-19,

320-21, 828 ».

-, Emma, daughter of, 818.

Haya, Adam de la, 15.

, Jordan de, 33.

, Nichola de, wife of Gerard de
Camyille, 32 n.

-, Eobert de, 16, 17, 81, 82, v.

Sherifls.

-, Eobert de, Rector of Souldern

(Oxon), 82 ».

-, Robert de, Sheriff of Oxfordshire,

Ac., 32».

, William de, Rector of Broseley,

32,34.

Heches, Pagan de, 67 ft.
Hedleg v. Hadley, and Ercalewe.
Helgot, 2, 196 ft, 258 bis.

, Herbert, son of, 196 ft, «. Castello.

Hemes, John de, 170, 279 ft, 309.
, , Walter son of, 170, 264,

309.
Hempton, William de, 37, 74.
Hengham, Ralph de, Justiciar, 232, 322,

323.
Herbert, Senesohal of Ideshal, 92 n, v.

Wyke.
Hereford, Adam de, 170.
Hereford, Bishop o£ 22, 36, 42, 72, 77-79,

154.
, , Richard (de Oapella),

199.

— , Robert (de Betun),

204,331.

blanca), 22.

-, Peter (de Aqua-

33n, 77.

-, Thomas Charlton,
-, John (Trilleck), 79.

-, Charles Booth, 77.

, Earls of, 177 ft, 180.

, Earl of, Milo, 193, 271.

, , , Roger, son of,

270.
Herez, William de, 279 ft.
Herleton, Ralph de, 67, 68.
Hermann, Chaplain, 273 ».

Hethene, Henry le (of Larden), 37.
Hetune, Adam de, 169, 0. Traynel.
Hibernensis, v. Irish.
Higford, or Hugford, Henry de (1203),

85,326.
, Henry de, 16, 22, 32, 218, 220,

256, 326-7, 328.

, John de, 187.

, Nicholas de, 186, 137.

, Walter de (I), 826.

-, Walter de (II), 15, 70, 71, 108«,

115ft, 119ft, 124«, 125ft W#, 126ft, 184,
218i», 220 ft.

9 Walter de (II or III), 16, 17, 82.

-, Walter de (III), 22, 51, 56, 57,

92, 119 », 130«, 298 ft.

„ f • # * » daughter of, 61,

66, 57, f>. Wililey.

-, Walter de (IV), 31, 179ft, 238ft,

329 ».

-, Walter de (1369), 148.

-, Walter de, Rector of Stockton,

148.

-, William de, 55, 75, 102*, 122 »,

136, 223 11, 298 ft, W*.

, William de (1379), 148.

, William de, Rector of Stockton,

148.

, William de (of TTpton),2l7,326.

Hinnington, Baldwin de, 170, 309.
, , John sonof, 170, 309.

-, John de, 327 ».

Hod (of Drayton), Roger, 87, 319ft, 321,

822 ft, 325.

, William, 313 », 824 », 325, 326.

Hodenet, Baldwin de, 102 ft, 133 ft.
, Odo de, 16, 17, 92 », 117 ft,

119 «, 127, 128, 130 ».
Hog, Thomas le (of Stanton), 326, 333.
Holegode, Richard (of Shiffiial), 319.
Holland, Robert de, 209.
, , Maud la Zouche, wife of,

209.
Homme, John de la, 310.
Hop, Benett de, 67 ».

, Robert de, 67 ft.

Hope-Bowdler, Nicholas, Parson of, 172.

Hope, Richard le, 321.

Hopton, Walter de, 55.

Horde, Richard, 122 n.

Horseley, Robert de, 212 ».

Howele, Roger de, 319.

362

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Howie, Richard, 329 n.
Hubert (Preacher of the Crusades), 72.
Hubert, Alan and Adam, 316.
Hull, Stephen de, 23.
Humfrey, John, 180 », t>. Humphreston.
Humphreston, Humphrey de, 172 n, 181,
220», 223n.

, John de, 180 », 181.

, William de, 181.

— — , , Leticia wife of,

166, 181.

-, William de, 28, 181.

Hunnit, 45, 48-49, 304-5, 308-9.

Idsall, Incumbents of, 335-337.
Idsall, Lords of, 172, 217 n, et passim.

, Master Richard de, 112 », 133 *»

218 n, 279 n, 335 n.

— , Nicholas, son of,

— , Peter, Clerk, son

218 it, 335 n.

of, 327-8, 335 ».

, Philip de, 115 ».

-, Philip, Parson of, 335.
— , Roger de, 290.
— , Simon de, 319.
-, Vicar of, 173.

-, William Moreton, 334.

Infans, Alan (Brockton), 125, 126.

, , William, son o£ 126.

Insula, D', v. Lisle.
Ipstones, John de, 13, 26, 27.

, William de (I), 12, 25, 26.

, , * * Bagot, wife o£ 12,

25.

-, William de (II), 13.

Irish (Ybernensis), Philip, 328 ».
Irish, Richard, 58, 328.

, , John son of, 328.

, , Petronilla daughter of,

828, v. Upton.

-, Richard son o£

329.
Ithel, or Fitz Ithel, Adam, 125.

, John, 129, 130.

Ivelith, v. Evelith.
Iweyn, v. Owen.

J.
James, Chaplain of Broseley, 32, 34 ».

John, Chaplain (testis), 115 n.

, Clerk of Queen Adeliza, 200.

Jordan, Master, 278 n.

Joye, Master John, Rector of Idsall, 385-6.

Jumieges, William o£ 269 ».

Kallerhale, Alice de, 189.
Karleton, Wyman de, 116.
Keede, v. Cude.
Kemberton, Alan de, 822 n.
Kemberton, Gilbert, Chaplain o£ 126 n.

, Nicholas de, 129 ».

Kemberton, Walter de, Rector of Idsall,

92», 119n, 130 », 143, 298fl» 313 », 835.
Kenley, Alice de, 323-4.
Kenley, Juliana de, 51, v. Wililey.
, Master John de, Clerk, 811, 812,

323 bis.

, Ralph de, 312.

-, Burga daughter of, 812,

o. Skybrass.

-, Roger de (son of Hugh de

Haughton), 324, v. Haughton.
Kilby, Hugh de, 246.
Kinlet, Henry Clerk of, 18.
Kinslow, Geoffrey de (II), 31.
Knicht, John le, 310.
Knightley, Richard de, 81.

, Robert de, 86.

Knycheleye, v. Neachley.
Knolle, Aohi de, 281, 317, 325 n.
, Oliver de (Harper of Walter de

Dunstanvill), 279 », 281, 317-8, 320.
-, Sibil de Halcton, supposed

wife of, 318.

-, Oliver de (I, n, or HI), 92»>

130 », 131*, 298 », 299*, 800*, 313,
318, 319*, 828*.

, Pagan de la, 818.

, Richard de la, 318.

, Swein de, 281, 317.

-, Thomas de la, 318, 322 *, 825 *,

326 ».
Kynaston, Family ofj 113 n.

Laoheia, Ralph de, 66 *.
Laci, Family of, 147.
, Gilbert de, 40.

INDEX OF PERSONS.

363

Loci, Catherine de, 88.

, Margery de, 67, 227.

, Roger de, 258, 261.

Lam, Geoffrey de, 67 n.
Langetot, Emma de, 283, 297.
, f • • • •, coheir of; 283,

297, «. Dunstanvill.
Langford, * * * * de, 208.
, , • • • wife oi, 208, v.

Belmeis.

-, Master Ralph de, Dean of St.

Paul's, 208.
Langley, Geoffrey de, Justiciar, 26, 73,

117.
Larden, Eoger de, 66 ».
Latimer, 109 ft.
Latymer, Thomas de, 13.

, -, Anna, wife of, 13, v.

Beysin.
Laurenoe, Master, 323 ft.
Lawe, John de la, 117.
Lawley, Adam de, 327 ».
Lee, Beyner de, 143, 218 «.

— , , Thomas, son of, 218 ».

Lee (Parva or Leonard's), Thomas de,

279 ft, 280, 313, 814r5.
— , Walter, son of Thomas de, 279 ft. W*,

314.
, Leonard, son of Thomas de, 279 ft. fti*,

314r316, 333.

— , , Walter, son of, 315, 327 ».

— , , Henry, son of, 816-6, 317.

, , , Sibil, wife of, 816.

-, Walter, son of, 817.

— , , Matilda, supposed daughter

of, 815, v. Eyton.

, , Joanna, daughter of, 315-6.

-, Nichola, daughter of, 315-6.

Lee (Aynulfs or Prior's), Eilric de, 273,

278, 279, 313.
Lega (Hugh Ley), Hugh de, 71.

, Hugh de, 18, 37, 172 ».

Legh, Philip de, 27.

Leicester, Earl of (Robert de Bossu), 108.

, , Simon deMontfort, 227.

Leigh, Reginald de, 15.

Leighton, Richard de (circa 1200), 9.

,Riohard de (circa 1280), 15.

, Richard de (circa 1245-6), 18,

22.
Leuric, Earl of Mercia, 258.
Levereshet, William de, 329 ».

Lewes, Prior and Conrent of, 270, v.

Lewes Priory (Supra, p. 343).
Lexinton, Robert de, Justiciar, 32.
Leybourne, Simon de, 122 ft.
Lichfield, Bishop of, 90, 139, 182, 185-6,

188-190, 252, 334 », 336.
9 9 Robert (de Limesey)

194 ».

, — — , Roger de Clinton, 182,

201, 202 ft, 204, 247, 248 ft, 881-2.

— Walter Durdent, 182,

206, 332.

332.

-, Richard Peche, 182,

, , Hugh de Noyant, 138,

248, 249, 250, 335.

, Geoffrey deMusohamp,

188.

248-9.

-, William de Cornhull,

Tenby, 138.

-, Alexander de Sta-

-, Roger de Molend, 138-

• , , WalterdeLangton,140,

159, 160-1, 164 », 237.

-, Roger de Northburgh,

139.

161, 189.

f , Robert de Stretton,

140.

-, John Bourghill, 140.

Lichfield, Dean of, Ralph, 189.

, Ernulf, Canon of 248.

Lilleshall, Abbot and Convent of, 204-6,
221-2, 250, 820.

, Abbot of, William, 212 ft.

, , — —■■-■-, Simon, Ne-
phew o£ 212 ft.

, Abbot of, Walter, 280 ft. bit.

f $ Alan, 103.

, , Ralph (1284), 328 ft.

Limberg- Magna, Robert Fitz Peter of,

209,246.
, , Tecia, daughter

of, 209, 246, v. Belmeis.
Lincoln, Alexander, Bishop of, 273 ft.
Lingen, 256, 257.
, Isabel alias Elizabeth, 226, 240,

v. Pembruge.
Linley, Baldwin de, 40.

, Philip de, 40, 98, 116 ».

, , Iseud, daughter of, 40, 98,

v. Farlow.

364

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Linley, • * * daughter of Philip de, 40,

98, v. Farlow.

, Ralph de, 40.

, Richard de, 39, 40.

, Richard de, 40, 97, 100, 102.

, Sibil de, 40,* 97, 98, 100, 102.

, Walter de, 40.

Lintot, Robert de, 279 ». ter> 282.

, , Alan, nephew of, 282.

Lisle, Humphrey de, 268-9, 275, 296.
9 9 Adeline, daughter of,

268-9, 297, v. Dunstanvill.
, Roger and Reinald de, v. Cumbre-

vilL
Littlebury, Martin de (Justiciar), 232.
Loges, William de, 67 ».
London, Archdeacon of, Hugh or Richard ?

(inter 1152-9), 206 ».
London, Bishop of, Maurice, 199.
, , Richard de Belmeis (I),

v. Belmeis.

-, Robert de Sigillo, 273 ft.
-, Richard de Belmeis (II),

v. Belmeis.

, Hugh a, 206 ».

, Richard de, 212 «.

-, Simon de, Clerk, 119, 119 ».

Longeb", Robert de, 124 ».
Longespee, William, 291, 292, 296.

, , Idonea, wife of, 291,

292, 296, t>. Camvill.

, , William, son of, 296.

, Maud, wife

of, 296, v. Clifford.
Lotwych, Robert de, 319, 328 ».
Louther, Hugh de, 96, 306.
Lucas, Syman, 180.

, , Richard, son of, 180.

Luci, Richard de, 64 ft, 109, 110.
Ludlow, 226, 257.

, Benedicts de, 226.

, John, 240.

, William de, 226.

, ' , Isabel de Vernon, wife

o£, 226.
Lucteshull, Richard de, 290.
Lymer, Adam le, 319.

Maine, Joel de, 216.

Mainnio, Thurold de, 50 ft, 203.

Malbanc, William, 284 », 296.
, , Philippa, daughter of,

284 ft, 296, v. Basset.
Male, Robert de la, 23.
Malet, William (Dapifer of Henry II),

278 ft.
Malet, William, 296.
, , Alice, wife o£ 296, v.

Basset.

-, William (of Girardville), 58 ft.

Mahnsbury, Thomas, Clerk of, 218 n.
, William of (Chronicler),

199.
Maminoht, Waloheline, 4, 106 », 107.
Manchester, Walter de, 31.

• , , Hugh, son of, 31.

Manderille, Geoffrey de, 215.
, William de (Earl of Essex),

216.
Marcandus, 282.
Mare, John de la, 297, 300, 301, 309, 322,

336.
, , Petronilla, wife of, 297, 300,

v. DunstanTill.
Marescall (of WiUey), William, 58.
— — , , Alice, wife of, 68,

v. Stalhere.
Marescall (of Wyke), Walter, 310, 327*
, Walter (II), 300 », 310, 811,

321 », 322 ft.

-, Edith, wife of, 310.

Marscot, Hamo, son of, 170.
Masun, William le, 37 bis.
Maulay, Peter de, 215.
Mauveysin, Henry, 65.

, PhiUp, 65.

, William, 9.

Meleford, Gilbert de, 290.
Mercia, Earls of, 103, 191, 192.

, Earl of; Edwin, 103.

, , Moroar, 103, 191.

Mere (Staffordshire), * * • de, 209.

, , Isolds, widow

of, 209, 244.
— , John de, 244.
-, William de, 244.

Meschin, William, 205, 208.

, , Matilda, daughter ofi

205, 208, o. Belmeis.
Meschines, William de (of Coupland),

225 ft.
Messager, Nicholas le, 96.

INDEX OP PER80NS.

365

Mestling, Adam, 95.

Mete, Warin do, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, t>.

Warin.
Middelhope, Richard de, 15.
' ', Thomas de, 38.
Midelton, Stephen de, 67 n.
Mildenhale, Alan de, 33.
Miller, Richard (West-Bradley), 87.
Molis, Nicholas de, 218.
Montfort, 165, 166, 257 n.
, Robert de, 295, 297, 800-302,

318, 321-2, 325, 380.

-, Petronilla, wife of,

295, 297, 299, 800-802, 830, v. Dim-
fltanvill.

— , William, son of, 297,

300-302.

-, Simon de, o. Leicester, Earl of.

Montgumeri, Hugh de, 258, v. Shrews*

bury, Earls of.
Morcar, Earl of Mereia, 191, 258, 265.
Moreton (Toret, or Corbet), Peter de, v.

Teret.
Morf, Henry de, 111, 118.
Morinus (Donington), 157 ».
Mortimer (of Chelmarsh) —

, Hugh de, 13.

, — , Margaret, daughter o£

18, v, Beysin.

-, Hugh de (1322), 157.

Mortimer (of Riohards-Castle) —
-, Robert de, 75.

-, Hugh de, 228-280 (Qy. if of

Chelmanih).
Mortimer (of Wigmore) —
, Ralph de (I), 258 pluri**, 261-

268.

-, Ralph de (II), 17.
-, Roger de (I), 212 ».
-, Roger do (II), 227-282.

-, , Matilda, wife of, 280.

-, — , Ralph, son of, 280.

Mortimer, William de (alia* William la

Zouche de), 180.
Morton, Michael de, 86, 178, 298 ».

, William de, Rector of Holm, 324.

, William de, Vicar of Idsall, v.

Idsall.
Morwic, Hugh de, Dapifer, 188 «.
Morys, Richard, Chaplain, 189.
Mugleston, aliaw Mukeleston, John, 299,

818, 319.

II.

Mugleston, Richard de, 122 », 320 *.

, Robert de, 103 n.

Muleston, William de, 67 ».
Mussun, Roger, 110, 132, 134, 137.

, , Alice, daughter of, 138,

v. Cherleton.

-, Alina, daughter of, 188,

o. Beckbury.
f , Galiena,wifeof,132,138,

184.

, , Gilbert, brother of, 183 n.

, , Juliana, daughter of, 133,

v. Corbrond.

-, Sibil, daughter of, 133,

v. Bruges.
Muttun, Nicholas de, 264 ».

Neachley, Riohard de, 179 ».
Neuham, Hugh, Prior of, 273 «.
Neuton, Peter de, 119 *.
Nevill, Alan de, Justiciar, 150, 207, 274.

, Hugh de, Justiciar, 151, 186.

, William de, 290.

Newburgh, v. Warwick.
Newport, Bean of, 141.
Noel, Ralph, 74, 75.

, Thomas, 285.

Norman (Ustit), 278 n.

Normandy, William, Duke of, 104, 210 n,

o. England, Kings of.
Northampton, Earl of, William de Bohun,

387.
% — t Elisabeth de Badles-

mere, wife of, 337 n.
Novo Burgo (Newport), Alexander de

183 u.

Ocovre, Roger de, 287 ft.

Oliver, Harper of Walter de Dun?tanvill,

281, 820, v. Knolle.
Oluuin (T.R.E.), 258.
Orderious (Historian), 193 i», 261.
Ordui (Stockton), 142.
Orleton, Ralph de, 112 », 133 ».

, Roger de, 811.

1 1 Boheee, wile of, 811.

Out! (T.R.E.), 258.

Overton, Geoffrey de, Knight, 37.

366

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Overton (Oxfordshire), Adam de, 88 ft.

, William de, 32.

Owen, or Iweyn (of Brockton), 94, 97.

, Henry, son of, 94, 97, 125 », 126 ».

, Henry, 97.

, Richard (I), 97, 127 ft.

, Richard (II), 97.

, , Sibil, wife of, 97.

, Robert, 97.

Oyselur, Richard le, 95.

Paganel (of Dudley), Gervase, 62.
Palmer, Hamo le, 72 ft.

, Roger le, 81.

Pantulf, v. Paunton.
Pantulf, Brice, 284 ft.
Pantulf (of Dawley)—

, Ralph, 279 ft, 280 ».

, , William, son of, 280 ».

Parco, Henry de, 30.

, , Margery, wife of, 30.

Paris, Matthew, 72, 73.

Parker, Stephen, 178.

Parvus, William, 128.

Passelewe, Robert, 144.

Pater-noster (of Dray ton), Richard (1270),

300 ft, 822 ft, 325.
•, Richard (1316), 325, 326 »,

329 bis.

Drayton.

, John, son of, 825.

-, William, 279 », 282, 325, v.

, William, 313 ft, 324 », 325,

326 ft.
Patinton, Hugh de, 37.
Patshull, Mancell de, 126 ».

t Martin de, 171.
Paunton, Alan de, 23.

, Ivo de, 23.

Peohie, Richard, 143.

Pedwardine, Walter de, 298 ft, 300 ».

Pembroke, Earl of, William Marshall,

294.
Pembroke, Gerald Steward of, 196.
Pembruge, Family of, 41 ft, 164, 165, 192,

209, 252, 255, 256, 257.
, Fulk (I) de, 179, 209, 225, 226,

232-237, 256.

. 9 .Isabella, wife of, 209,

Pembruge, Fulk (II) de, 179 ft, 209, 226,

236-239.

1 , Matilda, wife of, 209,

226, 239.

, Fulk (III) de 226, 239, 240.

-, Alice, supposed wife of,

226, 239 ».
, Fulk (IV) de, 226, 240, 250,

253-255.

, , Margaret Trussel, wife

of, 226, 240, 255 ».

-, Isabel or Elizabeth Lin-

226, 286, 237.

gen, wife of, 226, 240, 250, 253-255.

, Godfrey de, 226, 228, 231.

, Henry (I) de, 225, 226.

, , William, son of; 226,

227.

--, Eufemia, wife

of, 226, 227.

, Henry (II) de, 226, 227-232.

-, Elizabeth, wife of, 226,

227, 229, 230.

-, Henry (III) de, 209, 224-226,

229-236, 300 ft.

— , Orabel, wife o£ 209,

224-226, 229, 233, 234, v. Harcourt.
, , Alice, wife of, 225, 226,

234, 235.
, , Henry, son of, 225, 226,

234, 235.

-, Richard de, alias Vernon, v.

Vernon.

, Robert de, 226, 240.

, , Juliana, daughter of,

226.
Penford, Robert de, 13, 28-30,
, , Alice, wife of, 18,28-30,

v. Covene and Sany.
Pen-in, Ralph de, 133 ft.
Pershore, Abbot of, 232.
Persone, Isabel le (of Albrighton), 155.
Perton, William de, 28.
Peter, Chamberlain, 206 ft.
— — , Dapifer of Alan de Dunstanvill,

273 ft.
Petronilla, Dame (Arlscott), 15.
— — , John, brother of, 15.
Petyt, Thomas and Henry, 75 ft.
Peverel, various Families of, 3, 104-107.
, Hamo, 4, 89-40, 48, 104-107,

109, 131, 132, 142, 196 ft.
— — , , Seburga, daughter of, 107».

INDEX OF PERSONS.

367

Peverel, Sibil, wife of Hamo, 104, 106,

107 n, v. TornaL

, Pagan (of Brun), 105, 106.

, Ranulf, of Essex, 104, 105.

f f Wife of, 104.

, , William, son of (of

London and Essex), 105.

, Robert, 105 », 106 n.

, William (I), of Dover, 106, 106,

107 ».

9 , Wife of, 107 », t>.

Tornai.

-, William (II), of Dover and Brun,

105«, 106 «, 270.

-, Sisters of, 107.

, William (I), of Nottingham, 104,

105.
Peytevine, Sir Thomas, 240.
Philip, Chaplain (Harrington), 133.
Pichford (of Blymhill, Broseloy, Ac.) —

, Geoffrey de, 23, 27-31, 35.

, , Mary, wife of, 29, 80.

, , Richard, son of, 81,

85.

-, Richard de, 26.
-, Roger de, 28 ».

Pichford, Engelard de, 82, 83, «. Stretton.
Pichford (of Albrighton, Pichford, &c.),

82, 89, 150, 163, 164, 165, 166, 263.

, Hugh de, 151, 152 n, 170.

j -, Burga, wife of, 152,

v. Baskerville.

, John de, 89, 153, 154, 155.

', , Margaret, wife of, 155.

, Nicholas de, 83.

, Ralph (I) de, 82, 84, 150, 169.

, Ralph (II) de, 51, 55, 85 *, 152,

153, 156, 167, 169 », 172.

-, Burga, presumed

daughter of, 61, 65 », v. Wililey.

, Margery, wife of,

v. Strange.

-, Ralph (III) de, 154, 155, 166,

158, 159.

, Richard (I) de, 82, 150.

-, Richard (II) de, 83, 160, 161,

263.
Pichford, Adam de, 152.

, Geoffrey, Provost of, 152.

, William de, Rector of Albrighton,

160.
Picstoc, Robert de, 178.

Pierpoint, William de, 66 *.
Pilarditon, William de, 75 *.
Pincerna, Maurice, 206.
Pinkney, • * de, supposed husband of

Adelina de Lisle, 297.
, Walter de, their son, 269-271,

296.
Pistor, Thomas (Sutton), 115.
Pivelesdon, Roger de, 16, 119 n, 177, 298,

828*.

, Roger de, 179 *, 180 », 237».

Plaunoe-folle, Xsangrue, 220 n.
Plessetis, Hugh de, 227.
Podemore, Richard de, 15.

, Richard le Rekene de, 16.

Poer (of Romesley), John le, 75 ».

Pollard, Adam, 92 n, 330.

, (of Lee), 131 », 183, 312 *,

317 », 828 n, 330.

-, Robert, son of, 312 », 313,

328 », 380.
Pontefract, William de, 206 ».
Pope Lucius III, 52 «.

Urban III, 138, 273.

Innocent nj, 335.

Gregory IX, 72.

Port, Adam de, 274.

Powis-Land, Princes of, 107-108, 111.

, Blethyn ap Convyn, 107, 111, 193.

, , Jorwerth, son of, 193.

9 , Oadugan, son of, 196, 197.

, , Owen, son of, 196,

197.

, , Riryd, son of, 196.

1 , 9 Ithel, son of, 196.

, , — — , Madoo, son of,

196-7.

, Meredith ap Blethyn, 107, 111.

-, Jorweth Gooh, son of,

107, 108-113.
Powis (Vadoc), Princes of; 108, 111.
, Madoo ap Meredyth, 108, 109,

111.
1 1 Owen Yaohan, son of,

109, 110, 111.

, Owen Brogynton, son o£

111.

-, Gruflyth Maylor, 111.

-, Madoo ap Gruflyth, 111.

-, Gruflyth ap Madoc, 111.

. 9 9 Emma d'Audley, wife

of, 111.

368

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Powia (Higher), Princes of, 108, 111.

, , Gruflyth ap Meredjth,

Prince of, 108, 109, 111.
, f , Gweyryl, wife of, 111.

, Owen Oyvelioo, Prince of, 109,

110, 111.

, , Wenlhian ap Owen Gwy-

neth, wife of, 111.

— — , Gwenwynwyn, Prince of, 111.

— — , Margaret ap Bees, wife

of, 111.
, Gruflyth ap Gwenwyswyn, Prince

of, 111.
Powis, Soger de, 110 ft, 280.
Preaux, Engeram dee, 276 ft, 280 », 287*

291, 297.
1 $ Hawise, aUa* Sibil,

wile of, 287-292, 297, v. Dunstanvill.
Prees, John de, 86, 178, 228, 242, 298 »,

822».

-, Philip do, 119 ft, 120 ».

, Philip de, Clerk, 125 ft, 817 ft.

, William de, 288.

Presthope, John de, 88, 87.

, Margery de, 44, «. Caughley.

Presthope, Roger de, 15.

Preston, Gilbert de (Justiciar), 224.

Preston (on the Wildmoors), Adam de,

817 ft, 829 ft.

, Pagan de, 122 ft, 817 ft.

, Ralph de, 317 ft.

, Roger de, 279.

Prudhome, Robert, 128.
Puclesdon, Alexander de, 67 ft.
Pulesdon, v. Piyelesdon.
Pym, Hugh, 95.

, Richard, 99 ft.

Pypard, Ralph, Baron, 165 ».
Pype, 257.

Quinci, 165 », 218 », 222, v. Winchester,
Earls of.

Rabaz, Thomas, 816, 817 ».

Radmore (Staffordshire), Convent of, 271.

Ralph, Clerk, Rector of Broseley, 17.

, Gilbert, brother of, 17.

Ranulph, Priest, 212 ».
Reginald (Beckbury), 71.

, Priest, 67 ft.

Rekene, Richard le, 15.

Reetune, Roger de, 14.

Richard (Serrant of Isabella Beysin), 21.

Riohard's-Oastle, Barons of, 62, 63, 70,

74, 75 », 130.
, , Osbern Fits Richard,

61, 62, 80, 81, 93.

-, Osbern Fita Hugh, 62,

63, 66, 67 ft.

-, Robert de Mortimer, 75.

f , John Talbot, 63 ft.

Richer, Priest of Torring, 278 ft.

Rikeward, Robert, 88.

Robert (of Badger, 1086), 61-68.

, Chamberlain of the Bishop of

London, 206 «.

, Chaplain, 203.

, Chaplain, 212 ».

, Clerk, 205.

-, Provost (Wyke), 299.

Rochester, Ranulf, Bishop of, 196.
Roger, Chaplain, 273 ft.

, Clerk, 206 ft.

, Clerk, 212 ». bit.

Roger, Knight of Walter de Dunatanvill,

288.
Roger (Domesday Tenant of Neenton) 258.
Rohan (Brittany), Vicomtes of, 215,218,

219.

, Geoffrey ,Yioomte of, 208, 210, 211.

, , Alan, son of, e. Zouche.

-, Alan, Yioomte of, 215-219.

Romely, Robert de, 205 ft.

1 t Cicely, wife of, 205 ».

Roe, William de (Clerk), 72.

Rossall, Thomas de, 102 ft.

— , Vivian de, 334 ».

Rouen, Rotrode, Archbishop of, 278 ft.

Ruckley, Selfer de, 218, 247.

Rudge, Eudo de, 71.

RufluB, Henry (de Wrocwaryni), 112 ft.

, William, 125 ft.

RuBhbury, Herbert de, 53 ft.

Russel (of Brockton), Family of, 93-95.

, Geoffrey, 94, 112 n, 124 ft, 126 ft.

, Robert, 93, 94, 95, 97.

f — — , Agatha, sister of, 94, 95.

— , , Iweyn, brother of, 94, 95,

«. Owen.

, Thomas, 95, 96, 99 ft, 126 «, 127 ft.

-, William, 15, 94, 95, 102 », 115 »,

124 ft, 125 ft, 126 ft, 131 ft, 157.
— _ ? 1 Dionisia, wife o^ 95.

INDEX OF PER80N3.

369

Russel (of Donington), Nicholas, 95.

— — , Ranulph, 184. v

— — , Ranulph, son of Richard, 177.

Russel, Roger, 117 ».

, WilUam, 167.

Rusteg, Roger, Seneschal of Arundel,

278 ».
Ryton, Bernard, Priest of, 89, 90, 112 ».

, Incumbents of, 89*90.

, John de, 85, 119 ft, 120 ft.

, Reginald, Beadle of, 170.

, Richard de, 15, 84, 85, 115 ft,

124 «, 126 «, 126 ft, 170, 327 ft.

, Richard Fitz Odo de, 83, 84.

, William de, 86-88, 810.

-, William Taylor, Rector of, 90,

161.

Sage, William le, 71.

Sahebuiy, John de, 169.

Saint, Bernard de, 175 ft.

Saint David's, Bishop of, Bernard, 200.

9 9 Peter, 188 ft.

Saint-Mary-Church, William de, 276,

277, 285.
Saint-Martin, Roger de, 278 ft.
Saint-Maur, Nicholas de, 209.
, Elene la Zouche, wife o£

209.
Saint-Owen, Walter de, 9.
Saint-Paul's (London), Dean of, Ralph

de Langford, 208.
— — — , — — , William,

208.
Saint Osyth, 199.
Saint-Osyths, William Curboil, Prior of,

199,200.

, Fulk, Prior of, 200, 201.

Saint RemigiuB* (at Rheims), Monks of,

194.
Salisbury, Bishop of, 195.

, , Joceline, 278 ft.

, Earl of, 216.

, , William Longespee,

Sandford, Ralph de (II), 127-128, 298ft.
, Richard de (I), 43, 92 », 94 »,

296.

Salop, Stephen de, Rector of Oldbury, 85.
Salvage, Geoffrey, 264 ».
Samford, Thomas de, 288.
Sandford, Ralph de (I),8, 9, 14, 48, 68, 94,

102, 103, 115 ft, 118, 123-130, 131 ft.

122, 126-127, 298 ft.

Alianore, wife of,

127, v. Burnel.

-, Richard de (II), 122, 128.

Sanford, Gilbert de, 209, 233.

, , Lora, wife of, 209, 232,

233, 285, «. Zouche.
Sany, Thomas, 13, 28-30.
, , Alice, wife of, 13, 28-30,

e. Covene and Pendeford.
Sauvage, Robert le, 288.
Savage, Adam, 53.
Savario (de Bohun), 202 ft.

, Ralph, son o£ 202 ft, 273 ».

— — , — , Helias, nephew o£ 273 n.

Say, Helias de, 208.

Say, Hugh de, 203, 205.

Say, Isabel de (of Olun), 6, 40.

Say, Philip de (Stockton), 146.

Say, Robert de, 124 ft.

Schenton, Hugh de (Donington), 183-4.

Schireburn, Ralph de, 278 ».

Scissor, Germanus, 127.

Scotland, David I, King of, 273 ft.

Selinton, William de, 290.

Serland, WilUam de, 218.

Seun, Ivo Brito de, 212 ft.

Seuuard (T.R.R.), 268.

Shakerley, Hemmie de, 176 ft.

Shakespeare, 253 ft.

Shavington, Henry de, 838.

Shawbury, Wido de, 133 ft, 170.

Sheriff of Shropshire, 146, et passim.

, Warin, the Bald, 2, 8 ft.

, Rainald, 168, 193, 194.

, Fulcoius, 8 », 194.

-, Richard de Belmeis, 4, 47, 48, 60,

266, e. Belmeis.

, Pagan Fite John, 200.

, William Fits Alan (I), 108.

, Guy le Strange, 64, 66.

* Geoffrey de Vere, 110i».

, , William, Clerk of, 110 ».

, Hugh Pantulf, 63.

, William Fits Alan (II), 54, v.

Fitz Alan.

, Warner de Wililey (Under-

Sheriff), 54, v. Wililey.

, Peter de RivallL, 32.

, Robert de Haya, 16, 32.

870

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Sheriff (of Shropshire), John le Strange,
66, t>. Strange.

, Nicholas de Wililey (Under-
sheriff), 66, «. Wililey.

, William de Caverswell, 45.

-, Bogo de Knovill, 120.

Shineton, Hugh de, 22.

Shrewsbury, Norman Earls of; 174.

Shrewsbury, Earl of, Roger de Mont-
gomery, 9, 39, 45, 61, 62, 80, 81, 93,
103, 147, 149, 166, 173, 174, 181, 182,
191, 192, 193, 247, 249, 258 pluriet,
26],262,265-267,333ii.

, ■ , Hugh de Mont-
gomery, 104, 106, 149, 191, 193, 258,
261, 263, 266.

-, Robert de Belesme,

47, 75, 191-194, 266-7.
Shrewsbury, Abbot and Conrent o£ 182-

184, 207, 216, 217, 248, 251, 266, 331,

334.

, Abbot of, Oeoftrey, 200.

f f Ralph, 281.

, , Hugh, 68, 248,

249, 333.

, Monk of, Thomas, 333.

Shrewsbury, Archdeacon of (ChesterDioc.)

139, 140, 160.

, , Roger, 200.

, , Richard, 112 a.

Shrewsbury, Master Robert, Dean of,

112 n, 133 n.
, , Richard, brother

of, 133 a.
Skybrass, Thomas, 812.
, , Burga de Kenley, wife

of, 312.
Smith (of Broseley), Nicholas, 16.
1 f Geoffrey, son of, 16,

17.

, (of Caughley), Walter, 43.

, , Agnes, wife of, 43.

Smythe, Thomas (of Badger), 80.
Soultone, Yvo de, 122 a.
Spink, Walter (of Kilsall), 178.

, , William, son of, 178.

Sprenghose, Ralph, 102 a.

, Roger, 16, 103 a.

, Roger, 102 a.

Stafford, Barons of; 21 a, 25, 27, 164 a,

207.
, Robert de (1085), 258.

Staffordshire, Sheriff of; 18,157, etpauim.

— — — , , Nicholas, 194 a.

— — — — — , " --, Herrey de Strat-

ton, 264 n.
Stalhere, Walter le, 58.
— — , , Alice, daughter of,

68, v. MareschaU.

-, Christiana, daughter

of; 68, e. Despenser.
Standon, Gerraae de, 15.
Stanes, Richard de, Justiciar, 232.
Stanley (of Tong), 192, 253 a.

, Sir Edward, 192 n, 253 a.

, , Yenetia, Lady Digby,

daughter of, 192 a.

-, Sir Thomas, 258a.

Stanton, (Shiflhal) Ralph de, 92 a, 172 a,

826.

, Robert de, 298 a, 326.

, Walter de, 322 a, 326.

Stantune, Simon de, 66 a.
Stapeham, Ralph de, 300a.
Stapleton, Robert de, 10, 16.
— , William de, 61, 67.

, , Philip son of, 61, 57.

— — , , , Burga wife of,

61, 57, t>. Wililey.
Stapenhull, Richard de, 319.
Stapleton, Nicholas de, Justiciar, 232.
Stapeltun, Hauci de, 67 a.
Stepulton, Robert de, 237 a.
Stevinton, Hugh de, 830.
, John de (I), 86 &w, 87, 131 a,

298 quater, 300 a, 310, 312 a, 813 a,

319, 321 bii t 328 a, 329, 330 a.
, ,Bailiff of Idsall, 298 a

, John de (II), 324 a, 325 a,

329, 330.
, , Seneschal of Idsall,

330.

-, Thomas de, 826 a, 330.
-, William de, 325, 330.

Stirchley, Osbert de, 172 n, 315.

, Richard de, 124 a.

, Roger, Parson of, 316.

, Walter de, 115 a, 125 a, 183 a,

327 a.
Stockton, Adam de, 143.

, , Gilbert, brother of, 143.

, , Matilda, wife of, 143.

, , Robert, brother of, 70 a,

143.

INDEX OF PERSONS.

371

Stookton, Henry de, 144.

, Herbert de, 143.

— — — , Hugh, Dometday Tenant of,

142.

-, Incumbents of, 148.

-, Nicholas, Chaplain of, 70 si,

148.

, Oliver de, Parson of, 120 ft,

145, 148.

-, Philip de, 143, 144, 145. «.

Say.

-, Walter de, 143.
, , Richard, son of, 144,

145.
Stok, Richard, 816.
Strange, Le, Family of, 8, 7, 8, 66 ».
Strange (of Brockton), Henry le, 14, 94 »,

102 n, 115 », 117 ft, 118, 119 ». 124,

125 ft, 126 », 129 n, 131 ft.
, Ralph le (Father of Henry),

125 ».

-, Roger le, 125 ».

Strange (of Alveley, Weston, &a), —

, Guy le, 3, 63, 64, 66, 67 », 74, 84.

, Ralph le, 111, 113.

, , Matilda, sister of, 113, v.

Sutton.

-, Coheirs o£ 69, 71, 74, 75,

113.
Strange (of Blackmere), 121 », 145, 146.

, John le, 121.

, Fulk le, 120, 122, 128, 132, 146,

146, 336.
, , Alianore, wife of, 122, v.

Giffard.

, , John, son of, 123.

Strange, (of Nesse and Cheswardine) —

, John le (I), 66 ft, 280.

1 John le (II), 8, 68 ft, 113, 170,

214.

, John le (III), 57, 118, 120.

, , Robert, son o£ 67, 120,

145, 147, 318, 819, 321.

— , Alianore, wife of,

120*.

•, John le (IV), 120 «.

Strange, Hamo le (1257), 295

Strange, Hamo le, 66 ft.

, , Adam son of, 66 ft.

, Hugole, 66 ».

, , John, brother o£ 66 n.

Strange, Mabil le, 7, v. Burwardsley.

Stretton, Engelard de, 81-84, 88, 150.
, , Alice, sister of, 84, v.

Burgo.

-, Felicia, daughter of, 84.

Stuiorius, Roger, 327 ».

Subiri, Roger de, 71.

Sudeley, Ralph de, 32.

, , Henry and Otwel, bro-
thers of, 32.

Sudenhall, Robert de, 212 ».

Sutor, Haco, 204, 211.

Sutton, Gervase (alia* Jorwerth) Goch of,
107-113, 181.

, , Madoc, son of, 111, 112,

119, 137.

, Griffin de, 70 », 94, 111-114, 119,

123-124, 126 », 128, 129, 131, 134, 280.

, , Matilda le Strange, wife

of, 111, 113-116, v. Strange.

-, Madoc, son of Griffin de, 14, 16,

17, 22, 92, 94 «, 111, 114, 116-120, 124,
126 ft, 127, 129 ft, 130 ft, 132, 135, 306,
313 m, 317 ft.

-, Griffin, brother o£ 111,

114, 126 ft, 129 ft.

, , Howel, brother of, 111,

114.

-, Duce, alias Cecilia, wife

of, 111, 116.

, , Isabel, daughter of, 111,

118, v. Morf.
Sutton, Henry de Ideshale, Vicar of, 141.

■—, Hugh, Chaplain of, 115 ft, 141.

, Incumbents of, 137-142.

, John, Lord of, 120 », 131 ».

, Nicholas, Chaplain of, 126 ft, 180 »,

141.

-, Priest of, 129 », 141.
-, Vicar of, 119 ft, 141.

-, Philip, Chaplain of, 133, 141.
-, Ralph, Clerk, Rector of, 137, 141.
-, Richard, Chaplain of, 115 », 141.
-, Robert de, 116 « W*.
-, , Nicholas, Chaplain, bro-

ther of, 115 ft.

, William, Chaplain of, 141.

, William, Beadle of, 125 ft.

Suygg (of Swiney), Richard, 39.

« , , Richard, son of, 89.

Swiney, Memun de, 14, 88.

, Peter de, 88.

, Philip de, 21, 88 6w, 38.

372

INDEX OP PERSONS.

Swiney, Stephen de, 15, 16 Wt, 22, 32, 88.

, Warner de, 38.

, Wenne de, 21, 38.

, William de, 16, 23.

Swinudus, 66 ft.
Syche, John atte, 180.
Sydenhale, Walinger de, 134 ft.
Sypton, Roger, Dean of; 72.

Talbot, John, 63 ft, e. Richards Castle.
Tateshale, Stephen Fitz Henry, 243.
Taylour, Nioholas le (Tong), 238.

, John le (Upton), 829 W*.

Tece, John, 15, 16, 23, 32.

■, , John, eon of, 22 ?

Tece (of Tasley), John, 100.
Templars, The Knights (of Lidley), 14.

9 f Master of, 178.

Tetbald, 46 ft.

, Robert son o^ 46 ft, 258 bit, 261,

265-267, 330-332.
Tewkesbury, Abbot of, 290.
Thelrio, alias Terric, Provost, 117 ft.
Thomas (tenant in Brockton), 15.

, Priest, 212».

Thwst, 16ii.

Time, Reginald or Rainald de, 124 n,

133 ft, 170.
Tong, Hen?g?ius de, 15.

f , William son of, 16.

, Incumbents of, 251-2.

, Incumbent of, Ernulf, 248-251.

9 t Robert de Shire-

ford, 248, 251.

», Robert de Atterley.

, William de, 16, 22.

, William Parson of, 251.

Tong-College, Master of; 251.
Toresmer, Adam de, 33.

, Alan de, 88 ».

Toret, 46-49, 305, 808.

, Peter Fits, 63, 112 ft, 278 ft «#,

279 ft, 280 ft, 281, 282 n, 805, 809.
-, Bartholomew, son of Peter, 112 ft,

115 ft, 279 ft, 280 ft, 282, 806.

9 _ f (Joan) daughter of,

307, «. Corbet.

, Gerald (or Gerard) Fitz, 14, 806.

, Philip, son of Peter, 112 «, 279 ft,

306.

Toret, Walter, son of Peter, 115 «.
Tornai, Gerard de, 103, 104, 106-109,

132, 142, 167-8.
, , Sibil, daughter of, wife

of Hamo Peroral, 104, 106, 107 ft.

-, • * • •, daughter of; al-

leged wife of Wm. Peverel, v. Peverel.
Torpel, Lucas de, 117 «.
Torvill, Robert de, 278 ft.
Traoi, Pharamus de, 112 ft, 279 ft bis.

, , John, brother of, 279 ».

Traynel (of Hatton), Adam, 169, 170, 172,

804, 308.
9 9 ivo, nephew of, 169,

304,808.

-, Reginald, son of;

169, 170.

, Robert, 170, 171.

-, Robert (II), 171, 172, 264.
-, William, 171.

Traynel (of Willey), Adam, 58.
Tregoz, John, Baron, 156, 159.

■ , , Clarice, daughter of, 156,

«. Warre, De la.

-, Sibil, daughter of, 156, v.

Grandison.
Tresgoz, Geoffrey de, 273 ».
Trilwardyne, Robert de, 94 n, 102 n, 119 »,

125 ft, 127 ft, 811-812, 327 ft.
, 9 Petronilla, wife of,

312.

\ Robert de (II), 812, 828 ft.

9 9 Edith, daughter of,

312.
TruUemag, Hugh, 212 ft.
Trussell, 255 ft, 257.
Trussell, William (of Cublesdon), 240.

, — , Ida le Botyler, wifeof, 240.

, —, Margaret daughter of, 226,

240, v Pembruge.
Turbumlle, Robert de, 13, 21.
, f Isabel, wife of, 18, 21,

«. Beysin.

, Robert de, Rector of Brose-

ley, 35.
Turgod, or Turgot, 168, 258, 262, 264.
Turnham, Stephen de, 286.
Turold, 45-60, 56 », 67, 304, 305.
, Robert son of; 46 ft, 47, 48, 49,

50.
Turold (1120), 60.
Tusehet, Thomas, 298, 829.

INDEX OF PERSONS.

373

Uluiet (T.R.E.), 48, 49, 804-5.
Uluoard (1086), 258.
Uluuin (T.R.E.), 258.
Umfravill, 163 n.

, Dame Margaret d\ 836.

Umfrey, John, 155, v. Humphrey.
Uppedun, v. Upton (Oresaett).
Uppinton, Ernald, Chaplain of; 188 n.
Upton (Cressett), Alan de, 176.

, Hugh de, 18.

, Thomas de, 18.

Upton (Shiffhal), PetroniUa de, 828-9, «.

Irish.

, , Richard, eon of, 329.

, Reginald de, Clerk, 217 *, 828.

, Robert de, 217 ».

Val, Hugh de la, 209, 248, 244.

— , , Matilda, wife ot, 209, 248-4, e.

Belmeis.
Valletort, Reginald de, 292, 297.
, f Johanna, wife of, 292,

297, «. Basset.
Yangi, Alan, 108.
Venator, Ralph, 175 n.
Venator, Norman, 82, 149, 150, 166.

, Roger, 149, 268.

Verdon, Thomas de, 296.

, , Eustachia, wife of, 296,

v. Basset.
Verleio, Turold de, 47, «. Turold.
Vernon, Roger le, 228.
Vernon, Family of, 192, 226, 255-6, 257.

, Richard de,of Harlaston,226,240.

, , Juliana Pembruge, wife

of, 226, 240.

-, Richard de (II) of Harlaston,

226,240.

-, Johanna Griffith, wife

of, 226.

-, Isabel, daughter of, 226.
-, Joan, daughter o£ 226.

, Richard de (III) alia* Pembruge,

226, 240, 255.

, , Benedicts, wife of; 226, 265.

-, William de, 226.

Vilers, Robert de, 278 ».
Vivon, Hugh de, 215.
Vylile, 165 n.

Walensis, v. Walsh.

Wales (North), Princes of—

, Owen Gwyned, 4 *» 108 n.

, , Wenlhian, daughter of, 111.

-, Darid ap Owen, 112.

-, Lewellyn, 116.
Wales (South), Prince of—

, Rese, 110.

Waleys, Nicholas le, 95.
Walsh, Adam, 92 it.

, Ralph, 128, 124.

■, Richard, 119 n.
Walter (Romesley), 258.
Walterrille, Ascelina de, 5.
Waltham, Henry de, 883 bit.
Waneting, Henry de, 10.
Wanton, Simon de, Justiciar,' 127.
War, John de la, 90, 156, 159, 160, 161,

246.

1 1 Clarice, wife of; 166, •.

Tregos.
— f , Roger de la, 166.
Warin (de Metz), 2, 8, 4, 7, 11, 12.

, the Bald, 2.

Warnerius (supposed anoestorof Wililey),

60.
Warren, Sari, William (Plantagenet),

294.

Warren, William de, 14.

, , Ranulf, brother of, 14.

Warwick, Earl of, Henry de Newburgh

(1),194.
, , Henry de Newburgh

(II), 296.

-, Philippa

Basset, wife of, 296.
Was, Richard, 290.
Waterile, Robert de, 272, 292.

, Walter de, 279 ».

Wehnton, Philip de, 138 n.

Wenlock, Hugh de, 124 n.

Wenlock, Prior and Conrent of, 78, 79,

264.

, Prior of, 19 »» 40, 41, 42, 48,

44, 48, 64, 66, 69, 60, 69, 71, 73, 74,

76, 77, 80.

, , Rainald, 40.

, — — , Peter, 6.

f 9 Robert, 62 », 280 n.

— — — , Imbert or Humbert, 71,

116.

II.

374

INDEX OF PERSONS.

Wenlock, Prior of, G-uychard, 57 *.

, , Roland, 77.

, Sacristan of, 33 n> 78.

-, Vicar of, 59, 60, 79.

Weston, Agnes de, Sub-Prioress of Bre-
wood, 189.

, Hamo de, 186.

, Hugh de, 86 «*, 800 n.

Weston (near Monk Hopton), Roger de,

37.
Wiart, Robert, 67 ».
Wicotre, William de, 67 n.
Wifare (T.R.E.), 258.
Wiga (T.R.E.), 258.
Wilbricton, Hervey de, 207.

9 William de, 10.

Wilikin ctiias William (Sutton), 123.
Wililey, Andrew Fitz Nicholas de, 51, 66,

67, 100, 242 «.
9 9 • # * », wife of (daughter

of Walter de Hugford), 61, 56, 57.

-, Burga, daughter of; 51,

57, 58, v. Stapleton and Harley.

, Hugh de, 60, 51, 52.

-, Nicholas de, 10, 11, 16, 16, 82,

51, 55 », 66, 57, 69, 242 n.

-, Burga, wife o£ 51, 55,

66, v. Pichford.

-, Ralph, son of? 242.

, Warner de, 2, 9, 15 », 40, 61-66,

69, 126 ».

-, Petronilla, wife of, 2 «,

15 n, 51, 63-56, v. Fitz Odo.

-, Juliana de Eenley,

daughter of, 51.

-, Warner (presumed ancestor of),

51.

Willesburgh, Master Robert de, 212 n.
Willey, Incumbents of, 69, 60, 61.
William (Domesday Tenant of Etone),

167.

, Clerk (terfi*), 279 », 281-2.

Winchester, Bishop of, 72, 195.
, , William Gifford,

199.

— . Earl of, 233.

— , , Roger de Quinci, 209.

— , , , Helen, daughter

of, 209, v. Zouohe.
Wingebam, Henry de, 144.
Wiscard, Baldwin, 124 n,
Witefcld, Robert de, 6 ».

Wiuar (T.R.E.), 80.
Wodecote, Richard, 169.

, Robert de, 176.

, , Robert, uncle of,

176.
Wodeford, Nicholas de, Knight, 21.
Wodetun (or Wudeton), Robert de, 71.

, William de, 63.

Wolaston, Ralph, 123.

Wombridge, Prior and Canons of, 91, 92,

115 n, 122, 126 «, 131 it, 134, 137-142,

279-280, 282, 298, 299, 313-4, 322-3,

825 *, 835-6.

, Henry, Prior of, 133 n.

, Philip, Prior of, 322, 329.

Woodhouse, (Shiffhal) Hamondde, 319.
, , Henry son of, 319,

820.

-, Roger de, 320.

Worcester, Bishop of, 251.

, , Wulstan, 80.

, , Godfrey Giffard,

233-5.
Wrocworthin, Adam de, 133 ».
Wrottesley, Adam de, 864 ».

, Sir William de, 829 ».

Wroxeter, Gregory Chaplain of, 188 ».
Wurgena, 112 ».

Wyke, Elyas de, Clerk, 811, 329 n.
, Herbert de (Seneschal of Idsall),

92 », 119 », 130ii, 299, 310, 328*.
-, Herbert de (II), 131 ». 298 n fo,

800 n> 310-1, 319 n, 321 », 322 », 328n.
-, John son of, 311, 813 n.

324 n, 325 n.

, Robert de, 310, 327 ».

, Robert Provost (of), 299.

-, Thomas de, 128, 811.

Wystereston, Sir William de, 300 ».

York, Archbishop of, 99 ».

, , Thomas (II), 196, 197.

, , Walter Giffard, 228-

280, 232-3.
York, H. Dean of, 138 ».
Ythel, o. ItheL
Yuat, or Thwst, 16 ».

Zouche (of Ashby), 165 », 185, 191, 206 n,
208, 209, 218 », 826-7.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Antiquities of Shropshire"

See other formats